Bullions encumbers his method of syntactical parsing with such a series of etymological questions and answers as cannot but make it one of the slowest, longest, and most tiresome ever invented. He thinks that the pupil, after parsing any word syntactically, "_should be requested to assign a reason for every thing contained in his statement!_"--_Principles of E. Grammar_, p. 131. And the teacher is to ask questions as numerous as the reasons! Such is the parsing of a text-book which has been pronounced "superior to any other, for use in our common schools"--"a _complete_ grammar of the language, and _available for every purpose_ for which Mr.

Brown's can possibly be used."--_Ralph K. Finch's Report_, p, 12.

[63] There are many other critics, besides Murray and Alger, who seem not to have observed the import of _after_ and _before_ in connexion with the tenses. Dr. Bullions, on page 139th of his English Grammar, copied the foregoing example from Lennie, who took it from Murray. Even Richard Hiley, and William Harvey Wells, grammarians of more than ordinary tact, have been obviously misled by the false criticism above cited. One of Hiley's Rules of Syntax, with its illustration, stands thus: "In _the use of the different tenses_, we must particularly _observe to use that tense_ which clearly and properly conveys the sense intended; thus, instead of saying, 'After I _visited_ Europe, I returned to America;' we should say, 'After I _had visited_ Europe, I returned to America."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 90. Upon this he thought it needful to comment thus: "'After I _visited_ Europe, I returned to America;' _this sentence is incorrect_; _visited_ ought to be _had visited_, because the action _implied_ by the verb _visited_ WAS COMPLETED _before_ the other past action _returned_."--_Ib._, p. 91. See nearly the same thing in _Wells's School Grammar, 1st Edition_, p. 151; but his later editions are wisely altered. Since "_visited_ and _was completed_" are of the same tense, the argument from the latter, if it proves any thing, proves the former to be _right_, and the proposed change needless, or perhaps worse than needless. "I _visited_ Europe _before_ I _returned_ to America," or, "I _visited_ Europe, _and afterwards returned_ to America," is good English, and not to be improved by any change of tense; yet here too we see the _visiting_ "_was completed before_" the return, or HAD BEEN COMPLETED _at the time_ of the return. I say, "The Pluperfect Tense is that which expresses what _had taken_ place _at_ some past time mentioned: as, 'I _had seen_ him, _when_ I met you.'" Murray says, "The Pluperfect Tense represents a _thing_ not only as past, but also as prior to some _other point of time_ specified in the sentence: as, I _had finished_ my letter _before_ he arrived." Hiley says, "The _Past-Perfect_ expresses an action or event which _was past before_ some _other past action or event_ mentioned in the sentence, _and to which_ it refers; as, I _had finished_ my lessons _before_ he came." With this, Wells appears to concur, his example being similar. It seems to me, that these last two definitions, and their example too, are bad; because by the help of _before_ or _after_, "_the past before the past_" _may_ be clearly expressed by the _simple past tense_: as, "I _finished_ my letter _before_ he _arrived_."--"I _finished_ my lessons _before_ he _came_." "He _arrived_ soon _after_ I _finished_ the letter."--"Soon _after_ it _was completed_, he _came in_."

[64] Samuel Kirkham, whose grammar is briefly described in the third chapter of this introduction, boldly lays the blame of all his philological faults, upon our noble _language itself_; and even conceives, that a well-written and faultless grammar cannot be a good one, because it will not accord with that reasonless jumble which he takes every existing language to be! How diligently he laboured to perfect his work, and with what zeal for truth and accuracy, may be guessed from the following citation: "The truth is, after all _which_ can be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by men of learning and science, _more_ or _less_ exceptionable. _These exceptions and imperfections_ are the unavoidable consequence of the _imperfections of the language_.

Language as well as every thing else _of human invention_, will always be _imperfect_. Consequently, a perfect system of grammatical principles, _would not suit it_. A perfect grammar will not be produced, until some perfect being writes it for a perfect language; and a perfect language will not be constructed, until _some super-human agency_ is employed in its production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not _perfect_ are _exceptionable_."--_Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 66. The unplausible sophistry of these strange remarks, and the palliation they afford to the multitudinous defects of the book which contains them, may be left, without further comment, to the judgement of the reader.

[65] The phrase _complex ideas_, or _compound ideas_, has been used for the notions which we have of things consisting of different parts, or having various properties, so as to embrace some sort of plurality: thus our ideas of _all bodies_ and _classes of things_ are said to be complex or compound.

_Simple ideas_ are those in which the mind discovers no parts or plurality: such are the ideas of _heat, cold, blueness, redness, pleasure, pain, volition_, &c. But some writers have contended, that the _composition of ideas_ is a fiction; and that all the complexity, in any case, consists only in the use of a _general term_ in lieu of many particular ones. Locke is on one side of this debate, Horne Tooke, on the other.

[66] Dilworth appears to have had a true _idea_ of the thing, but he does not express it as a definition; "Q. Is _an_ Unit of one, a Number? A. _An_ Unit is a number, _because it may properly answer the question how many!_"--_Schoolmaster's Assistant_, p. 2. A number in arithmetic, and a number in grammar, are totally different things. The _plural_ number, as _men_ or _horses_, does not tell _how many_; nor does the word _singular_ mean _one_, as the author of a recent grammar says it does. The _plural_ number is _one_ number, but it is not _the singular_. "The _Productive System_" teaches thus: "What does the word _singular_ mean? It means _one_."--Smith's New Gram., p. 7.

[67] It is truly astonishing that so great a majority of our grammarians could have been so blindly misled, as they have been, in this matter; and the more so, because a very good definition of a Letter was both published and republished, about the time at which Lowth's first appeared: viz., "What is a letter? A Letter is the Sign, Mark, or Character of a simple or uncompounded Sound. Are Letters Sounds? No. Letters are only the Signs or Symbols of Sounds, not the Sounds themselves."--_The British Grammar_, p.

3. See the very same words on the second page of _Buchanan's "English Syntax_," a work which was published as early as 1767.

[68] In Murray's octavo Grammar, this word is _the_ in the first chapter, and _their_ in the second; in the duodecimo, it is _their_ in both places.

[69] "The _definitions_ and the _rules_ throughout the Grammar, are expressed with neatness and perspicuity. They are as short and comprehensive as the nature of the subject would admit: and they are well adapted both to the understanding and the memory of young persons."--_Life of L. Murray_, p. 245. "It may truly be said that the language in every part of the work, is simple, correct, and perspicuous."--_Ib._, p. 246.

[70] For this definition, see _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 40; _Duodecimo_, 41; _Smaller Gram._, 18; _Alger's_, 18; _Bacon's_, 15; _Frost's_, 8, _Ingersoll's_, 17; _A Teacher's_, 8; _Maltby's_, 14; _T. H. Miller's_, 20; _Pond's_, 18; _S. Putnam's_, 15; _Russell's_, 11; _Merchant's Murray_, 25; and _Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dictionary_. Many other grammarians have attempted to define number; with what success a few examples will show: (1.) "Number is the distinction of one from many."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p.

40; _Merchant's School Gram._, 28; _Greenleaf's_, 22; _Nutting's_, 17; _Picket's_, 19; _D. Adams's_, 31. (2.) "Number is the distinction of one from more."--_Fisher's Gram._, 51; _Alden's_, 7. (3.) "Number is the distinction of one from several or many."--_Coar's Gram._, p. 24. (4.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 24; _J. Flint's_, 27; _Wells's, 52_. (5.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one, or many."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 7. (6.) "What is number? Number is the Distinction of one, from two, or many."--_British Gram._, p. 89; _Buchanan's_, 16. (7.) "You inquire, 'What is number?'

Merely this: _the distinction_ of one from two, or many. Greek substantives have _three_ numbers."--_Bucke's Classical Gram._, p. 38. All these authors say, that, in English, "there are _two numbers_, the singular and the plural." According to their explanations, then, we have _two "distinctions of one from two, several, more, or many;"_ and the Greeks, by adding a dual number, have _three_! Which, then, of the two or three modifications or forms, do they mean, when they say, "Number is _the distinction_" &c.? Or, if none of them, _what else_ is meant? All these definitions had their origin in an old Latin one, which, although it is somewhat better, makes doubtful logic in its application: "NUMERUS est, unius et multorum distinctio. Numeri _igitur_ sunt _duo_; Singularis et Pluralis."-- _Ruddiman's Gram._, p. 21. This means: (8.) "Number is a distinction of one and many. The numbers _therefore_ are _two_; the Singular and the Plural."

But we have yet other examples: as, (9.) "Number is the distinction of _objects_, as one or more."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 39. "The _distinction_ of _objects_ as _one_," is very much like "_the consideration_ of _an object_ as _more than one_." (10.) "Number distinguishes _objects_ as _one_ or more."--_Cooper's Murray_, p. 21; _Practical Gram._, p. 18. That is, number makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction's sake! (11.) "Number is the distinction of _nouns_ with regard to the _objects_ signified, _as one_ or more."--_Fisk's Murray_, p. 19. Here, too, number has "regard" to the same confusion: while, by a gross error, its "distinction" is confined to "_nouns_" only! (12.) "Number is _that property_ of a _noun_ by which it expresses _one_ or _more_ than one."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 12; _Analyt. Gram._, 25. Here again number is improperly limited to "_a noun_;" and is said to be one sign of two, or either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) "Number shows _how many_ are meant, whether one or more."--_Smith's new Gram._, p. 45. This is not a _definition_, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds arithmetic with grammar! _Wheat_ and _oats_ are of different numbers; but neither of these numbers "means _a sum that may be counted_," or really "shows _how many_ are meant." So of "_Man_ in general, _Horses_ in general, &c."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 77. (14.) "Number is _the difference_ in a _noun or pronoun_, to denote either a single thing or more than one."--_Davenport's Gram._, p. 14. This excludes the numbers of a _verb_, and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.) "Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing spoken of is represented, as, _one_ or _more_, with regard to number."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 32. This also has many faults, which I leave to the discernment of the reader. (16.) "What is number? Number _shows the distinction_ of one from many."--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 6. This is no answer to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form, which has "_is_," for "_shows_." (17.) "What is Number? It is _the_ representation of _objects_ with respect to singleness, or plurality."

--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 34. If there are two numbers, they are neither of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding ones. There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas. And this sort of error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.) "_Number_ is _the inflection_ of a _noun_, to indicate _one object or more than one_. Or, _Number_ is _the expression_ of unity or of more than unity."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 14. How hard this author laboured to _think what number is_, and could not! (19.) "Number is the distinction of _unity and plurality_."--_Hart's E. Gram._, p. 40, Why say, "_distinction_;" the numbers, or _distinctions_, being two? (20.) "Number is _the capacity of nouns_ to represent either one or more than one object."--_Barrett's Revised Gram._, p. 40. (21.) "Number is _a property_ of _the noun which_ denotes _one_ or _more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 55. (22.) "Number is _a property_ of the _noun or pronoun_ [,] _by which it_ denotes _one, or more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram., Abridged Ed._, p. 49. (23.) "Number is _the property_ that distinguishes _one from more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram., Improved Ed._, p. 60. This, of course, excludes the plural. (24.) "Number is _a modification of nouns_ to denote whether one object is meant, or more than one."--_Butler's Gram._, p. 19. (25.) "Number is _that modification_ of the _Noun_ which distinguishes one from more than one."--_Spencer's Gram._, p. 26. Now, it is plain, that not one of these twenty-five definitions comports with the idea that the singular is one number and the plural an other! Not one of them exhibits any tolerable approach to accuracy, either of thought or of expression! Many of the grammarians have not attempted any definition of _number_, or of _the numbers_, though they speak of both the singular and the plural, and perhaps sometimes apply the term _number_ to _the distinction_ which is _in each_: for it is the property of the singular number, to distinguish unity from plurality: and of the plural, to distinguish plurality from unity.

Among the authors who are thus silent, are Lily, Colet, Brightland, Harris, Lowth, Ash, Priestly, Bicknell, Adam, Gould, Harrison, Comly, Jaudon, Webster, Webber, Churchill, Staniford, Lennie, Dalton, Blair, Cobbett, Cobb, A. Flint, Felch, Guy, Hall, and S. W. Clark. Adam and Gould, however, in explaining the properties of _verbs_, say: "_Number_ marks _how many_ we suppose to be, to act, or to suffer."--_A._, 80; _G._, 78.

[71] These are the parts of speech in some late grammars; as, Barrett's, of 1854, Butler's, Covell's, Day's, Frazee's, Fowle's New, Spear's, Weld's, Wells's, and the Well-wishers'. In Frost's Practical Grammar, the words of the language are said to be "divided into _eight_ classes," and the names are given thus: "_Noun, Article, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, and Interjection_."--P. 29. But the author afterwards treats of the _Adjective_, between the _Article_ and the _Pronoun_, just as if he had forgotten to name it, and could not count nine with accuracy! In Perley's Grammar, the parts of speech are a different eight: namely, "_Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, Interjections_, and _Particles_!"--P. 8. S. W. Clark has Priestley's classes, but calls Interjections "Exclamations."

[72] Felton, who is confessedly a modifier of Murray, claims as a merit, "_the rejection of several useless parts of speech_" yet acknowledges "_nine_," and treats of _ten_; "viz., _Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs, Participles, Prepositions, Adjectives_, [Articles,] _Adverbs, Conjunctions, Exclamations_."--_O. C. Felton's Gram._ p. 5, and p. 9.

[73] Quintilian is at fault here; for, in some of his writings, if not generally, Aristotle recognized _four_ parts of speech; namely, verbs, nouns, conjunctions, and articles. See _Aristot. de Poetica_, Cap. xx.

[74] "As there are ten different characters or figures in arithmetic to represent all possible quantities, there are also ten kinds of words or parts of speech to represent all possible sentences: viz.: article, noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection."--_Chauvier's Punctuation_, p. 104.

[75] _The Friend_, 1829, Vol. ii, p. 117.

[76] _The Friend_, Vol. ii, p. 105.

[77] See the Preface to my Compendious English Grammar in the American editions of _the Treasury of Knowledge_, Vol. i, p. 8.

[78] Some say that Brightland himself was the writer of this grammar; but to suppose him the sole author, hardly comports with its dedication to the Queen, by her "most Obedient and Dutiful _Subjects_, the _Authors_;" or with the manner in which these are spoken of, in the following lines, by the laureate:

"Then say what Thanks, what Praises must attend _The Gen'rous Wits_, who thus could condescend!

Skill, that to Art's sublimest Orb can reach, Employ'd its humble Elements to Teach!

Yet worthily Esteem'd, because we know To raise _Their_ Country's Fame _they_ stoop'd so low."--TATE.

[79] Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, page 158th, makes a difficulty respecting the meaning of this passage: cites it as an instance of the misapplication of the term _grammar_; and supposes the writer's notion of the thing to have been, "of grammar in the abstract, _an_ universal archetype by which the particular grammars of all different tongues ought to be regulated." And adds, "If this was his meaning, I cannot say whether he is in the right or in the wrong, in this accusation.

I acknowledge myself to be entirely ignorant of this ideal grammar." It would be more fair to suppose that Dr. Swift meant by "_grammar_" the rules and principles according to which the English language ought to be spoken and written; and, (as I shall hereafter show,) it is no great hyperbole to affirm, that every part of the code--nay, well-nigh every one of these rules and principles--is, in many instances, violated, if not by what may be called _the language itself_, at least by those speakers and writers who are under the strongest obligations to know and observe its true use.

[80] The phrase "_of any_" is here erroneous. These words ought to have been omitted; or the author should have said--"the least valuable of _all_ his productions."

[81] This word _latter_ should have been _last_; for _three_ works are here spoken of.

[82] With this opinion concurred the learned James White, author of a Grammatical Essay on the English Verb, an octavo volume of more than three hundred pages, published in London in 1761. This author says, "Our Essays towards forming an English Grammar, have not been very many: from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to that of Queen Ann, there are but Two that the author of the Present knows of: one in English by the renown'd Ben Jonson, and one in Latin by the learn'd Dr. Wallis. In the reign of Queen Ann indeed, there seems to have arisen a noble Spirit of ingenious Emulation in this Literary way: and to this we owe the treatises compos'd at that period for the use of schools, by Brightland, Greenwood, and Maittaire. But, since that time, nothing hath appear'd, that hath come to this Essayist's knowledge, deserving _to be taken any notice of_ as tending to illustrate our Language by ascertaining the Grammar of it; except Anselm Bayly's Introduction to Languages, Johnson's Grammar prefix'd to the Abridgement of his Dictionary, and the late Dr. Ward's Essays upon the English Language.--These are all the Treatises he hath met with, relative to this subject; all which he hath perus'd _very_ attentively, and made the best use of them in his power. But notwithstanding all these aids, something still remains to be done, at least it so appears to him, _preparatory to attempting with success the Grammar of our Language_. All our efforts of this kind seem to have been render'd ineffectual hitherto, chiefly by the prevaliency of two false notions: one of which is, that our Verbs have no Moods; and the other, that our Language hath no Syntax."--_White's English Verb_, p. viii.

[83] A similar doctrine, however, is taught by no less an author than "the Rev. Alexander Crombie, LL. D.," who says, in the first paragraph of his introduction, "LANGUAGE consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium, by which _the mind_ communicates _its thoughts_. It is either articulate, or inarticulate; artificial, or natural. The former is peculiar to man; the latter is _common to all animals_. By inarticulate language, we mean those instinctive cries, by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are enabled to express their sensations and desires. By articulate language is understood a system of expression, composed of simple _sounds_, differently modified by the organs of speech, and variously combined."--_Treatise on the Etymology and Syntax of the English Language_, p. 1. See the same doctrine also in _Hiley's Gram._, p. 141. The language which "is _common to all animals_," can be no other than that in which aesop's wolves and weasels, goats and grasshoppers, talked--a language quite too unreal for _grammar_. On the other hand, that which is composed of _sounds_ only, and not of letters, includes but a mere fraction of the science.

[84] The pronoun _whom_ is not properly applicable to beasts, unless they are _personified_: the relative _which_ would therefore, perhaps, have been preferable here, though _whom_ has a better sound.--G. B.

[85] "The great difference between men and brutes, in the utterance of sound by the mouth, consists in the power of _articulation_ in man, and the entire want of it in brutes."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 8.

[86] Strictly speaking, an _articulate sound_ is not a simple element of speech, but rather a complex one, whether syllable or word; for _articulate_ literally means _jointed_. But our grammarians in general, have applied the term to the sound of a letter, a syllable, or a word, indiscriminately: for which reason, it seems not very suitable to be used alone in describing any of the three. Sheridan says, "The essence of a syllable consists in _articulation only_, for every _articulate sound_ of course forms a syllable."--_Lectures on Elocution_, p. 62. If he is right in this, not many of our letters--or, perhaps more properly, none of them--can singly represent articulate sounds. The looseness of this term induces me to add or prefer an other. "The Rev. W. Allen," who comes as near as any of our grammarians, to the true definition of a _letter_, says: 1. "The sounds used in language are called _articulate sounds_." 2. "A letter is a character used in printing or writing, to represent an _articulate_ sound."--_Allen's Elements of E. Gram._, p. 2. Dr. Adam says: 1. "A letter is the mark of _a sound_, or of _an articulation of_ sound."

2. "A vowel is properly called a _simple sound_; and the sounds formed by the concourse of vowels and consonants, _articulate sounds_."--_Latin and English Gram._, pp. 1 and 2.

[87] Of this sort of blunder, the following false definition is an instance: "A _Vowel_ is a letter, _the name of which_ makes a full open sound."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 5; _Brace's_, 7; _Hazen's_, 10. All this is just as true of a consonant as of a vowel. The comma too, used in this sentence, defeats even the sense which the writers intended. It is surely no description either of a vowel or of a consonant, to say, that it is a letter, and that the name of a letter makes a full open sound. Again, a late grammarian teaches, that the names of all the letters are nothing but _Roman capitals_, and then seems to inquire which of _these names_ are _vowels_, thus: "_Q_. How many letters are in the alphabet? _A_.

Twenty-six. _Q_. What are their names? _A_. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. _Q_. Which of _these_ are called _Vowels_?"--_Fowle's Common School Gram., Part First_, p. 7. If my worthy friend Fowle had known or considered _what are the names_ of the letters in English, he might have made a better beginning to his grammar than this.

[88] By the colloquial phrase, "to a Tee" we mean, "to a _nicety_, to a _tittle_, a _jot_, an _iota_. Had the British poet Cawthorn, himself a noted schoolmaster, known how to write the name of "T," he would probably have preferred it in the following couplet:

"And swore by Varro's shade that he Conceived the medal to a T."--_British Poets_, Vol. VII, p. 65.

Here the name would certainly be much fitter than the letter, because the text does not in reality speak of the letter. With the names of the Greek letters, the author was better acquainted; the same poem exhibits two of them, where the characters themselves are spoken of:

"My eye can trace divinely true, In this dark curve a little Mu; And here, you see, there _seems_ to lie The ruins of a Doric Xi."--_Ibidem_.

The critical reader will see that "_seems_" should be _seem_, to agree with its nominative "_ruins_."

[89] Lily, reckoning without the H, J, or V, speaks of the Latin letters as "_twenty-two_;" but _says nothing_ concerning their names. Ruddiman, Adam, Grant, Gould, and others, who include the H, J, and V, rightly state the number to be "_twenty-five_;" but, concerning their names, are likewise _entirely silent_. Andrews and Stoddard, not admitting the K, teach thus: "The letters of the Latin language are _twenty-four_. They _have the same names_ as the corresponding characters in English."--_Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Gram._, p. 1. A later author speaks thus: "The Latin Alphabet consists of _twenty-five_ letters, _the same in name_ and form as the English, but without the _w_."--_Bullions's Latin Gram._, p. 1. It would probably be nearer to the truth, to say, "The Latin Alphabet, _like the French_, has no W; it consists of twenty-five letters, which are _the same in name_ and form _as the French_." Will it be pretended that the French names and the English do not differ?

[90] The Scotch _Iz_ and the Craven _Izzet_, if still in use anywhere, are names strictly local, not properly English, nor likely to spread. "IZZET, the letter Z. This is probably the corruption of _izzard_, the old and common name for the letter, though I know not, says _Nares_, on what authority."--_Glossary of Craven, w. Izzet._ "_Z z, zed_, more commonly called _izzard_ or _uzzard_, that is, _s hard_."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p.

1.

"And how she sooth'd me when with study sad I labour'd on to reach the final Zad."--_Crabbe's Borough_, p. 228.

[91] William Bolles, in his new Dictionary, says of the letter Z: "Its sound is uniformly that of a _hard_ S." The _name_, however, he pronounces as I do; though he writes it not _Zee_ but ze; giving not the _orthography_ of the name, as he should have done, but a mere index of its pronunciation.

Walker proves by citations from Professor Ward and Dr. Wallis, that these authors considered the _sharp_ or _hissing_ sound of _s_ the "_hard_"

sound; and the _flat_ sound, like that of _z_, its "_soft_" sound. See his _Dictionary_, 8vo, p. 53.

[92] Dr. Webster died in 1843. Most of this work was written while he was yet in vigour.

[93] This old definition _John L. Parkhurst_ disputes:--says it "is _ambiguous_;"--questions whether it means, "that the _name_ of such a letter, or the _simple sound_," requires a vowel! "If the latter," says he, "_the assertion is false._ The simple sounds, represented by the consonants, can be uttered separately, distinctly, and perfectly. It can be done with the _utmost ease_, even by a little child."--_Parkhurst's Inductive Gram. for Beginners_, p. 164. He must be one of these modern philosophers who delight to _make mouths_ of these voiceless elements, to show how much may be done without sound from the larynx.

[94] This test of what is, or is not, a vowel sound or a consonant sound, is often appealed to, and is generally admitted to be a just one. Errors in the application of _an_ or _a_ are not unfrequent, but they do not affect the argument. It cannot be denied, that it is proper to use _a_, and not proper to use _an_, before the initial sound of _w_ or _y_ with a vowel following. And this rule holds good, whether the sound be expressed by these particular letters, or by others; as in the phrases, "_a wonder, a one, a yew, a use, a ewer, a humour, a yielding temper_." But I have heard it contended, that these are vowel sounds, notwithstanding they require _a_; and that the _w_ and _y_ are always vowels, because even a vowel sound (it was said) requires _a_ and not _an_, whenever an other vowel sound immediately follows it. Of this notion, the following examples are a sufficient refutation: _an aeronaut, an aerial tour, an oeiliad, an eyewink, an eyas, an iambus, an oasis, an o'ersight, an oil, an oyster, an owl, an ounce_. The initial sound of _yielding_ requires _a_, and not _an_; but those who call the _y_ a vowel, say, it is equivalent to the unaccented long _e_. This does not seem to me to be exactly true; because the latter sound requires _an_, and not _a_; as, "Athens, as well as Thebes, had _an Eetion_."

[95] Dr. Rush, in his Philosophy of the Human Voice, has exhibited some acuteness of observation, and has written with commendable originality. But his accuracy is certainly not greater than his confidence. On page 57th, he says, "The _m, n_, and _ng_, are _purely nasal_;" on page 401st, "Some of the tonic elements, and one of the subtonics, are made _by the assistance of the lips_; they are _o_-we, _oo_-ze, _ou_-r, and _m_." Of the intrinsic value of his work, I am not prepared or inclined to offer any opinion; I criticise him only so far as he strikes at grammatical principles long established, and worthy still to be maintained.

[96] Dr. Comstock, by enumerating as elementary the sound of the diphthong _ou_, as in _our_, and the complex power of _wh_, as in _what_, (which sounds ought not to be so reckoned,) makes the whole number of vocal elements in English to be "_thirty-eight_." See _Comstock's Elocution_, p.

19.