"Which _cuts_ are reckoned among the fractures."--_Wiseman_. "The officer erred in granting a _permit_."--"Feel darts and charms, _attracts_ and flames."--_Hudibras_. "You may know by the falling off of the _come_, or sprout."--_Mortimer_. "And thou hast talk'd of _sallies_ and _retires_."--_Shak_.

"For all that else did come, were sure to fail; Yet would he further none, but for _avail_."--_Spenser_.

4. Participles made nouns: "For the _producing_ of real happiness."--_Crabb_. "For the _crying_ of the poor and the _sighing_ of the needy, I will arise."--_Bible_. "Surely the _churning_ of milk bringeth forth butter, and the _wringing_ of the nose bringeth forth blood; so the _forcing_ of wrath bringeth forth strife."--_Prov._, xxx, 33. "_Reading, writing_, and _ciphering_, are indispensable to civilized man."--"Hence was invented the distinction between _doing_ and _permitting_."--_Calvin's Inst._, p. 131. "Knowledge of the _past_ comes next."--_Hermes_, p. 113. "I am my _beloved's_, and his desire is toward me."--_Sol. Song_, vii, 10.

"Here's--a simple _coming-in_ for one man."--_Shak_.

"What are thy rents? What are thy _comings-in_?

O Ceremony, show me but thy worth."--_Id._

5. Adverbs made nouns: "In these cases we examine the _why_, the _what_, and the _how_ of things."--_L'Estrange_. "If a point or _now_ were extended, each of them would contain within itself infinite other points or _nows_."--_Hermes_, p. 101. "The _why_ is plain as way to parish church."--_Shak_. "'Tis Heaven itself that points out _an hereafter_."--_Addison_. "The dread of _a hereafter_."--_Fuller_. "The murmur of the deep _amen_."--_Sir W. Scott_. "For their _whereabouts_ lieth in a mystery."--_Book of Thoughts_, p. 14. Better: "Their _whereabout_ lieth," or, "Their _whereabouts lie_," &c.

"Bid them farewell, Cordelia, though unkind; Thou losest _here_, a better _where_ to find."--_Shak_.

6. Conjunctions made nouns: "The _if_, which is here employed, converts the sentence into a supposition."--_Blair's Rhet._ "Your _if_ is the only peacemaker; much virtue is in _if_."--_Shak_.

"So his Lordship decreed with a grave solemn tone, Decisive and clear, without one _if_ or _but_-- That whenever the Nose put his spectacles on, By daylight or candlelight--Eyes should be shut."--_Cowper_.

7. Prepositions made nouns: "O, not like me; for mine's beyond _beyond_."--_Shakspeare: Cymb._, iii, 2. "I. e., her longing is _further than beyond_; beyond any thing that desire can be said to be beyond."--_Singer's Notes_. "You whirled them to the back of _beyont_ to look at the auld Roman camp."--_Antiquary_, i. 37.

8. Interjections or phrases made nouns: "Come away from all the _lo-heres_!

and _lo-theres_!"--_Sermon_. "Will cuts him short with a '_What then_?'"--_Addison_. "With _hark_ and _whoop_, and wild _halloo_."--_Scott_. "And made a _pish_ at chance and sufferance."--_Shak_.

"A single look more marks th' internal wo, Than all the windings of the lengthen'd _oh_."--_Lloyd_.

CLASSES.

Nouns are divided into two general classes; _proper_ and _common_. I. A _proper noun_ is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group; as, _Adam, Boston_, the _Hudson_, the _Romans_, the _Azores_, the _Alps_.

II. A _common noun_ is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things; as, _Beast, bird, fish, insect,--creatures, persons, children_.

The particular classes, _collective, abstract_, and _verbal_, or _participial_, are usually included among common nouns. The name of a thing _sui generis_ is also called common.

1. A _collective noun_, or _noun of multitude_, is the name of many individuals together; as, _Council, meeting, committee, flock_.

2. An _abstract noun_ is the name of some particular quality considered apart from its substance; as, _Goodness, hardness, pride, frailty_.

3. A _verbal_ or _participial noun_ is the name of some action, or state of being; and is formed from a verb, like a participle, but employed as a noun: as, "The _triumphing_ of the wicked is short."--_Job_, xx, 5.

4. A thing _sui generis_, (i. e., _of its own peculiar kind_,) is something which is distinguished, not as an individual of a species, but as a sort by itself, without plurality in either the noun or the sort of thing; as, _Galvanism, music, geometry_.

OBS. 1.--Through the influence of an article, a proper name sometimes acquires the import of a common noun: as, "He is _the Cicero_ of his age;"

that is, _the great orator_. "Many _a fiery Alp_;" that is, _high volcanic mountain_. "Such is the following application of famous names; a Solomon for a wise man, a Croesus for a rich man, a Judas for a traitor, a Demosthenes for an orator, and a Homer for a poet."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p.

326.

"Consideration, like an angel, came, And whipp'd _th' offending Adam_ out of him."--_Shak_.

OBS. 2.--A common noun, with the definite article before it, sometimes becomes proper: as, _The Park; the Strand; the Gharmel; the Downs; the United States_.

OBS. 3.--The common name of a thing or quality personified, often becomes proper; our conception of the object being changed by the figure of speech: as, "My power," said _Reason_, "is to advise, not to compel."--_Johnson_.

"Fair _Peace_ her olive branch extends." For such a word, the form of parsing should be like this: "_Peace_ is a _common noun, personified proper_; of the third person, singular number, feminine gender, and nominative case." Here the construction of the word as a proper noun, and of the _feminine gender_, is the result of the personification, and contrary to the literal usage.

MODIFICATIONS.

Nouns have modifications of four kinds; namely, _Persons, Numbers, Genders_, and _Cases_.

PERSONS.

Persons, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person or thing merely spoken of.

There are three persons; the _first_, the _second_, and the _third_.

The _first person_ is that which denotes the speaker or writer; as, "_I Paul_ have written it."

The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed; as, "_Robert_, who did this?"

The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of; as, "_James_ loves his book."

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The distinction of persons is founded on the different relations which the objects mentioned in any discourse may bear to the discourse itself. The speaker or writer, being the mover and maker of the communication, of course stands in the nearest or _first_ of these relations. The hearer or hearers, being personally present and directly addressed, evidently sustain the next or _second_ of these relations; this relation is also that of the reader, when he peruses what is addressed to himself in print or writing. Lastly, whatsoever or whosoever is merely mentioned in the discourse, bears to it that more remote relation which constitutes the _third_ person. The distinction of persons belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form or construction, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in person.

OBS. 2.--Of the persons, numbers, genders, cases, and some other grammatical modifications of words, it should be observed that they belong not exclusively to any one part of speech, but jointly and equally, to two or three. Hence, it is necessary that our _definitions_ of these things be such as will apply to each of them in full, or under all circumstances; for the definitions ought to be as general in their application as are the things or properties defined. Any person, number, gender, case, or other grammatical modification, is really but one and the same thing, in whatever part of speech it may be found. This is plainly implied in the very nature of every form of syntactical agreement; and as plainly contradicted in one half, and probably more, of the definitions usually given of these things.

OBS. 3.--Let it be understood, that _persons, in grammar_, are not _words_, but mere forms, relations, or modifications of words; that they are things, thus named by a _figure_; _things_ of the neuter gender, and not living souls. But persons, in common parlance, or in ordinary life, are _intelligent beings_, of one or the other sex. These objects, different as they are in their nature, are continually confounded by the makers of English grammars: as, "The _first_ person is _the person who speaks_."--_Comly's Gram._, p. 17. So Bicknell, of London: "The _first person_ speaks of _himself_; as, _I John take thee Elizabeth_. The _second_ person has the speech directed to _him_, and is supposed to be present; as, _Thou Harry art a wicked fellow_. The _third_ person is spoken of, or described, and supposed to be _absent_; as, _That Thomas is a good man_.

And in the same manner the plural pronouns are used, when more than one are spoken of."--_Bicknell's Grammatical Wreath_, p. 50. "The person speaking is the first person; the person spoken to, the second; and the person spoken of, the third."--_Russell's Gram._, p. 16. "The first person is the speaker."--_Parker & Fox's Gram._, Part i, p. 6. "Person is that, which distinguishes a noun, that speaks, one spoken to, or one spoken about."--_S. B. Hall's Gram._, p. 6. "A noun that speaks!" A noun "spoken to!" If ever one of Father Hall's nouns shall speak for itself, or answer when "spoken to," will it not reprove him? And how can the _first person_ be "the _person_ WHO _speaks_," when every word of this phrase is of the _third_ person? Most certainly, _it is not_ HE, nor any one of his sort. If any body can boast of being "_the first person in grammar_," I pray, _Who_ is it? Is it not _I_, even _I_? Many grammarians say so. But nay: such authors know not what the first person in grammar is. The Rev. Charles Adams, with infinite absurdity, makes the three persons in grammar to be never any thing but _three nouns_, which hold a confabulation thus: "Person is defined to be _that_ which distinguishes a _noun that speaks, one spoken to, or one spoken of_. The _noun_ that speaks [,] is the first person; as, _I, James_, was present. The _noun_ that is spoken to, is the second person; as, _James_, were you present? The _noun_ that is spoken of is the third person; as, _James_ was present."--_Adams's System of English Gram._, p. 9. What can be a greater blunder, than to call the first person of a verb, of a pronoun, or even of a noun, "_the noun that speaks?_" What can be more absurd than are the following assertions? "_Nouns_ are _in_ the first person when _speaking_. Nouns are _of_ the second person when _addressed_ or _spoken to_."--_O. C. Felton's Gram._, p. 9.

OBS. 4.--An other error, scarcely less gross than that which has just been noticed, is the very common one of identifying the three grammatical persons with certain _words_, called personal pronouns: as, "_I_ is the first person, _thou_ the second, _he, she_ or _it_, the third."--_Smith's Productive Gram._, p. 53. "_I_ is the first person, singular. _Thou_ is the second person, singular. _He, she_, or _it_, is the third person, singular.

_We_ is the first person, plural. _Ye_ or _you_ is the second person, plural. _They_ is the third person, plural."--_L. Murray's Grammar_, p. 51; _Ingersoll's_, 54; _D. Adams's_, 37; _A. Flint's_, 18; _Kirkham's_, 98; _Cooper's_, 34; _T. H. Miller's_, 26; _Hull's_, 21; _Frost's_, 13; _Wilcox's_, 18; _Bacon's_, 19; _Alger's_, 22; _Maltby's_, 19; _Perley's_, 15; _S. Putnam's_, 22. Now there is no more propriety in affirming, that "_I is the first person_," than in declaring that _me, we, us, am, ourselves, we think, I write_, or any other word or phrase _of_ the first person, _is_ the first person. Yet Murray has given us no other definitions or explanations of the persons than the foregoing erroneous assertions; and, if I mistake not, all the rest who are here named, have been content to define them only as he did. Some others, however, have done still worse: as, "There are _three_ personal pronouns; so called, because they denote the three persons, _who_ are the subjects of a discourse, viz. 1st. _I, who is_ the person _speaking_; 2d _thou, who is_ spoken to; 3d _he, she_, or _it, who_ is spoken of, and their plurals, _we, ye_ or _you, they_."--_Bingham's Accidence_, 20th Ed., p. 7. Here the two kinds of error which I have just pointed out, are jumbled together. It is impossible to write _worse English_ than this! Nor is the following much better: "Of the personal pronouns there are five, viz. _I_, in the first person, speaking; _Thou_, in the second person, spoken to; and _He, she, it_, in the third person, spoken of."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 25.

OBS. 5.--In _written_ language, the _first person_ denotes the writer or author; and the _second_, the reader or person addressed: except when the writer describes not himself, but some one else, as uttering to an other the words which he records. This exception takes place more particularly in the writing of dialogues and dramas; in which the first and second persons are abundantly used, not as the representatives of the author and his reader, but as denoting the fictitious speakers and hearers that figure in each scene. But, in discourse, the grammatical persons may be changed without a change of the living subject. In the following sentence, the three grammatical persons are all of them used with reference to one and the same individual: "Say ye of _Him whom_ the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, _Thou blasphemest_, because _I said I am_ the _Son_ of _God?_"--_John_, x, 36.

OBS. 6.-The speaker seldom refers to himself _by name_, as the speaker; and, of the objects which there is occasion to name in discourse, but comparatively few are such as can ever be supposed to speak. Consequently, _nouns_ are rarely used in the first person; and when they do assume this relation, a pronoun is commonly associated with them: as, "_I John_,"--"_We Britons_." These words I conceive to agree throughout, in person, number, gender, and case; though it must be confessed, that agreement like this is not always required between words in apposition. But some grammarians deny the first person to nouns altogether; others, with much more consistency, ascribe it;[140] while very many are entirely silent on the subject. Yet it is plain that both the doctrine of concords, and the analogy of general grammar, require its admission. The reason of this may be seen in the following examples: "_Themistocles ad te veni_." "I Themistocles have come to you."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 72. "_Adsum Troius aeneas_."--_Virgil_.

"_Romulus Rex regia arma offero_."--Livy. "_Annibal peto pacem_."--Id.

"_Callopius recensui._"--See _Terence's Comedies, at the end_. "_Paul_, an apostle, &c., unto Timothy, _my_ own son in the faith."--_1 Tim._, i, 2.

Again, if the word _God_ is of the second person, in the text, "_Thou, God_, seest me," why should any one deny that _Paul_ is of the first person, in this one? "_I Paul_ have written it."--_Philemon_, 19. Or this?

"The salutation by the hand of _me Paul_."--_Col._, iv, 18. And so of the plural: "Of _you builders_."--_Acts_, iv, 11. "Of _us the apostles_."--_2 Pet._, iii, 2. How can it be pretended, that, in the phrase, "_I Paul_,"

_I_ is of the first person, as denoting the speaker, and _Paul_, of some other person, as denoting something or somebody that is _not_ the speaker?

Let the admirers of Murray, Kirkham, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Comly, Greenleaf, Parkhurst, or of any others who teach this absurdity, answer.

OBS. 7.--As, in the direct application of what are called Christian names, there is a kind of familiarity, which on many occasions would seem to indicate a lack of proper respect; so in a frequent and familiar use of the second person, as it is the placing of an other in the more intimate relation of the hearer, and one's self in that of the speaker, there is a sort of assumption which may seem less modest and respectful than to use the third person. In the following example, the patriarch Jacob uses both forms; applying the term _servant_ to himself, and to his brother Esau the term _lord_: "Let _my lord, I_ pray _thee_, pass over before _his servant_: and _I_ will lead on softly."--_Gen._, xxxiii, 14. For when a speaker or writer does not choose to declare himself in the _first_ person, or to address his hearer or reader in the _second_, he speaks of both or either in the _third_. Thus Moses relates what _Moses_ did, and Caesar records the achievements of _Caesar_. So Judah humbly beseeches Joseph: "Let _thy servant_ abide in stead of the lad a bondman to _my lord_."--_Gen._, xliv, 33. And Abraham reverently intercedes with God: "Oh! let not _the Lord_ be angry, and I will speak."--_Gen._, xviii, 30. And the Psalmist prays: "_God_ be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause _his_ face to shine upon us."--_Ps._, lxvii, 1. So, on more common occasions:--

"As will the rest, so _willeth Winchester_."--_Shak_.

"Richard of York, how _fares_ our dearest _brother_?"--_Id._[141]