The Grammar of English Grammars Part 19

And _Learning_ was, in the _Dark Ages_, Preserv'd almost only among the _Clergy_."--CHARLES LESLIE, 1700; _Divine Right of Tythes_, p. 228.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The letters of the alphabet, read by their names, are equivalent to words. They are a sort of universal signs, by which we may mark and particularize objects of any sort, named or nameless; as, "To say, therefore, that while A and B are both quadrangular, A is more or less quadrangular than B, is absurd."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 50. Hence they are used in the sciences as symbols of an infinite variety of things or ideas, being construed both substantively and adjectively; as, "In ascending from the note C to D, the interval is equal to an inch; and from D to E, the same."--_Music of Nature_, p. 293. "We have only to imagine the G clef placed below it."--_Ib._ Any of their forms may be used for such purposes, but the custom of each science determines our choice. Thus Algebra employs small Italics; Music, Roman capitals; Geometry, for the most part, the same; Astronomy, Greek characters; and Grammar, in some part or other, every sort. Examples: "Then comes _answer_ like an ABC book."--_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 97. "Then comes _question_ like an _a, b, c_, book.--_Shakspeare_." See A, B, C, in _Johnson's quarto Dict._ Better:--"like an _A-Bee-Cee_ book."

"For A, his magic pen evokes an O, And turns the tide of Europe on the foe."--_Young_.

OBS. 2.--A lavish use of capitals defeats the very purpose for which the letters were distinguished in rank; and carelessness in respect to the rules which govern them, may sometimes misrepresent the writer's meaning.

On many occasions, however, their use or disuse is arbitrary, and must be left to the judgement and taste of authors and printers. Instances of this kind will, for the most part, concern _chief words_, and come under the fifteenth rule above. In this grammar, the number of rules is increased; but the foregoing are still perhaps too few to establish an accurate uniformity. They will however tend to this desirable result; and if doubts arise in their application, the difficulties will be in particular examples only, and not in the general principles of the rules. For instance: In 1 Chron., xxix, 10th, some of our Bibles say, "Blessed be thou, LORD G.o.d of Israel our father, for ever and ever." Others say, "Blessed be thou, LORD G.o.d of Israel, our Father, for ever and ever." And others, "Blessed be thou, LORD G.o.d of Israel our Father, for ever and ever." The last is wrong, either in the capital F, or for lack of a comma after _Israel_. The others differ in meaning; because they construe the word _father_, or _Father_, differently. Which is right I know not. The first agrees with the Latin Vulgate, and the second, with the Greek text of the Septuagint; which two famous versions here disagree, without ambiguity in either.[105]

OBS. 3.--The innumerable discrepancies in respect to capitals, which, to a greater or less extent, disgrace the very best editions of our most popular books, are a sufficient evidence of the want of better directions on this point. In amending the rules for this purpose, I have not been able entirely to satisfy myself; and therefore must needs fail to satisfy the very critical reader. But the public shall have the best instructions I can give. On Rule 1st, concerning _Books_, it may be observed, that when particular books or writings are mentioned by other terms than their real t.i.tles, the principle of the rule does not apply. Thus, one may call Paradise Lost, "Milton's _great poem_;" or the Diversions of Purley, "the _etymological investigations_ of Horne Tooke." So it is written in the Bible, "And there was delivered unto him _the book of the prophet_ Esaias."--_Luke_, iv, 17. Because the name of Esaias, or Isaiah, seems to be the only proper t.i.tle of his book.

OBS. 4.--On Rule 2d, concerning _First Words_, it may be observed, that the using of other points than the period, to separate sentences that are totally distinct in sense, as is sometimes practised in quoting, is no reason for the omission of capitals at the beginning of such sentences; but, rather, an obvious reason for their use. Our grammarians frequently manufacture a parcel of puerile examples, and, with the formality of apparent quotation, throw them together in the following manner: "He is above disguise;" "we serve under a good master;" "he rules over a willing people;" "we should do nothing beneath our character."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 118. These sentences, and all others so related, should, unquestionably, begin with capitals. Of themselves, they are distinct enough to be separated by the period and a dash. With examples of one's own making, the quotation points may be used or not, as the writer pleases; but not on their insertion or omission, nor even on the quality of the separating point, depends in all cases the propriety or impropriety of using initial capitals. For example: "The Future Tense is the form of the verb which denotes future time; as, John _will come_, you shall go, they will learn, the sun will rise to-morrow, he will return next week."--_Frazee's Improved Gram._, p. 38; _Old Edition_, 35. To say nothing of the punctuation here used, it is certain that the initial words, _you, they, the_, and _he_, should have commenced with capitals.

OBS. 5.--On Rule 3d, concerning _Names of Deity_, it may be observed, that the words _Lord_ and _G.o.d_ take the nature of proper names, only when they are used in reference to the Eternal Divinity. The former, as a t.i.tle of honour to men, is usually written with a capital; but, as a common appellative, with a small letter. The latter, when used with reference to any fabulous deity, or when made plural to speak of many, should seldom, if ever, begin with a capital; for we do not write with a capital any common name which we do not mean to honour: as, "Though there be that are called _G.o.ds_, whether in heaven or in earth--as there be _G.o.ds_ many, and _lords_ many."--_1 Cor._, viii, 5. But a diversity of design or conception in respect to this kind of distinction, has produced great diversity concerning capitals, not only in original writings, but also in reprints and quotations, not excepting even the sacred books. Example: "The Lord is a great G.o.d, and a great King above all _G.o.ds_."--_Gurney's Essays_, p. 88.

Perhaps the writer here exalts the inferior beings called G.o.ds, that he may honour the one true G.o.d the more; but the Bible, in four editions to which I have turned, gives the word _G.o.ds_ no capital. See _Psalms_, xcv, 3. The word _Heaven_ put for G.o.d, begins with a capital; but when taken literally, it commonly begins with a small letter. Several nouns occasionally connected with names of the Deity, are written with a very puzzling diversity: as, "The Lord of _Sabaoth_;"--"The Lord G.o.d of _hosts_;"--"The G.o.d of _armies_;"--"The Father of _goodness_;"--"The Giver of all _good_;"--"The Lord, the righteous _Judge_." All these, and many more like them, are found sometimes with a capital, and sometimes without. _Sabaoth_, being a foreign word, and used only in this particular connexion, usually takes a capital; but the equivalent English words do not seem to require it. For "_Judge_," in the last example, I would use a capital; for "_good_"

and "_goodness_," in the preceding ones, the small letter: the one is an eminent name, the others are mere attributes. Alger writes, "_the Son of Man_," with two capitals; others, perhaps more properly, "_the Son of man_," with one--wherever that phrase occurs in the New Testament. But, in some editions, it has no capital at all.

OBS. 6.--On Rule 4th, concerning _Proper Names_, it may be observed, that the application of this principle supposes the learner to be able to distinguish between proper names and common appellatives. Of the difference between these two cla.s.ses of words, almost every child that can speak, must have formed some idea. I once noticed that a very little boy, who knew no better than to call a pigeon a turkey because the creature had feathers, was sufficiently master of this distinction, to call many individuals by their several names, and to apply the common words, _man, woman, boy, girl_, &c., with that generality which belongs to them. There is, therefore, some very plain ground for this rule. But not all is plain, and I will not veil the cause of embarra.s.sment. It is only an act of imposture, to pretend that grammar _is easy_, in stead of making it so. Innumerable instances occur, in which the following a.s.sertion is by no means true: "The distinction between a common and a proper noun is _very obvious_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p 32. Nor do the remarks of this author, or those of any other that I am acquainted with, remove any part of the difficulty. We are told by this gentleman, (in language incorrigibly bad,) that, "_Nouns_ which denote the genus, species, or variety of beings or things, are always common; as, _tree_, the genus; _oak, ash, chestnut, poplar_, different species; and _red oak, white oak, black oak_, varieties."--_Ib._, p. 32. Now, as it requires _but one noun_ to denote either a genus or a species, I know not how to conceive of _those_ "_nouns_ which denote _the genus_ of things," except as of other confusion and nonsense; and, as for the three varieties of oak, there are surely no "_nouns_" here to denote them, unless he will have _red, white_, and _black_ to be nouns. But what shall we say of--"the Red sea, the White sea, the Black sea;" or, with two capitals, "Red Sea, White Sea, Black Sea," and a thousand other similar terms, which are neither proper names unless they are written with capitals, nor written with capitals unless they are first judged to be proper names? The simple phrase, "the united states," has nothing of the nature of a proper name; but what is the character of the term, when written with two capitals, "the United States?" If we contend that it is not then a proper name, we make our country anonymous. And what shall we say to those grammarians who contend, that "_Heaven, h.e.l.l, Earth, Sun_, and _Moon_, are proper names;" and that, as such, they should be written with capitals? See _Churchill's Gram._, p. 380.

OBS. 7.--It would seem that most, if not all, proper names had originally some common signification, and that very many of our ordinary words and phrases have been converted into proper names, merely by being applied to particular persons, places, or objects, and receiving the distinction of capitals. How many of the oceans, seas, lakes, capes, islands, mountains, states, counties, streets, inst.i.tutions, buildings, and other things, which we constantly particularize, have no other proper names than such as are thus formed, and such as are still perhaps, in many instances, essentially appellative! The difficulties respecting these will be further noticed below. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, group, or people; as, _Adam, Boston_, the _Hudson_, the _Azores_, the _Andes_, the _Romans_, the _Jews_, the _Jesuits_, the _Cherokees_. This is as good a definition as I can give of a proper noun or name. Thus we commonly distinguish the names of particular persons, places, nations, tribes, or sects, with capitals. Yet we name the sun, the moon, the equator, and many other particular objects, without a capital; for the word the may give a particular meaning to a common noun, without converting it into a proper name: but if we say _Sol_, for the sun, or _Luna_, for the moon, we write it with a capital. With some apparent inconsistency, we commonly write the word _Gentiles_ with a capital, but _pagans, heathens_, and _negroes_, without: thus custom has marked these names with degradation. The names of the days of the week, and those of the months, however expressed, appear to me to partake of the nature of proper names, and to require capitals: as, _Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Sat.u.r.day_; or, as the Friends denominate them, _Firstday, Secondday, Thirdday, Fourthday, Fifthday, Sixthday, Seventhday_. So, if they will not use _January, February_, &c., they should write as proper names their _Firstmonth, Secondmonth_, &c. The Hebrew names for the months, were also proper nouns: to wit, Abib, Zif, Sivan, Thamuz, Ab, Elul, Tisri, Marchesvan, Chisleu, Tebeth, Shebat, Adar; the year, with the ancient Jews, beginning, as ours once did, in March.

OBS. 8.--On Rule 5th, concerning _t.i.tles of Honour_, it may be observed, that names of office or rank, however high, do not require capitals merely as such; for, when we use them alone in their ordinary sense, or simply place them in apposition with proper names, without intending any particular honour, we begin them with a small letter: as, "the emperor Augustus;"--"our mighty sovereign, Abbas Carascan;"--"David the king;"--"Tidal king of nations;"--"Bonner, bishop of London;"--"The sons of Eliphaz, the first-born you of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek."--_Gen._, x.x.xvi, 15.

So, sometimes, in addresses in which even the greatest respect is intended to be shown: as, "O _sir_, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food."--_Gen._, xliii, 20. "O my _lord_, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my _lord's_ ears."--_Gen._, xliv, 18. The Bible, which makes small account of worldly honours, seldom uses capitals under this rule; but, in some editions, we find "Nehemiah the _Tirshatha_," and "Herod the _Tetrarch_," each with a needless capital. Murray, in whose ill.u.s.trations the word _king_ occurs early one hundred times, seldom honours his Majesty with a capital; and, what is more, in all this mawkish mentioning of royalty, nothing is said of it _that is worth knowing_.

Examples: "The _king_ and the queen had put on their robes."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 154. "The _king_, with his life-guard, has just pa.s.sed through the village."--_Ib._, 150. "The _king_ of Great Britain's dominions."--_Ib._, 45. "On a sudden appeared the _king_."--_Ib._, 146.

"Long live the _King_!"--_Ib._, 146. "On which side soever the _king_ cast his eyes."--_Ib._, 156. "It is the _king_ of Great Britain's."--_Ib._, 176.

"He desired to be their _king_."--_Ib._, 181. "They desired him to be their _king_."--_Ib._, 181. "He caused himself to be proclaimed _king_."--_Ib._, 182. These examples, and thousands more as simple and worthless, are among the pretended quotations by which this excellent man, thought "to promote the cause of virtue, as well as of learning!"

OBS. 9.--On Rule 6th, concerning _One Capital for Compounds_, I would observe, that perhaps there is nothing more puzzling in grammar, than to find out, amidst all the diversity of random writing, and wild guess-work in printing, the true way in which the compound names of places should be written. For example: What in Greek was "_ho Areios Pagos_," the _Martial Hill_, occurs twice in the New Testament: once, in the accusative case, "_ton Areion Pagan_," which is rendered _Areopagus_; and once, in the genitive, "_tou Areiou Pagou_," which, in different copies of the English Bible is made _Mars' Hill, Mars' hill, Mars'-hill, Mars.h.i.+ll, Mars Hill_, and perhaps _Mars hill_. But if _Mars_ must needs be put in the possessive case, (which I doubt,) they are all wrong: for then it should be _Mars's Hill_; as the name _Campus Martins_ is rendered "_Mars's Field_," in Collier's Life of Marcus Antoninus. We often use nouns adjectively; and _Areios_ is an adjective: I would therefore write this name _Mars Hill_, as we write _Bunker Hill_. Again: _Whitehaven_ and _Fairhaven_ are commonly written with single capitals; but, of six or seven _towns_ called _Newhaven_ or _New Haven_, some have the name in one word and some in two.

_Haven_ means a _harbour_, and the words, _New Haven_, written separately, would naturally be understood of a harbour: the close compound is obviously more suitable for the name of a city or town. In England, compounds of this kind are more used than in America; and in both countries the tendency of common usage seems to be, to contract and consolidate such terms. Hence the British counties are almost all named by compounds ending with the word _s.h.i.+re_; as, Nottinghams.h.i.+re, Derbys.h.i.+re, Staffords.h.i.+re, Leicesters.h.i.+re, Northamptons.h.i.+re, Warwicks.h.i.+re, Worcesters.h.i.+re, &c. But the best books we have, are full of discrepancies and errors in respect to names, whether foreign or domestic; as, "_Ulswater_ is somewhat smaller. The handsomest is _Derwent.w.a.ter_."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 212. "_Ulswater_, a lake of England,"

&c. "_Derwent-Water_, a lake in c.u.mberland," &c.--_Univ. Gazetteer_, "_Ulleswater_, lake, Eng. situated partly in Westmoreland,"

&c.--_Worcester's Gaz._ "_Derwent Water_, lake, Eng. in c.u.mberland."--_Ibid._ These words, I suppose, should be written _Ullswater_ and _Derwent.w.a.ter_.

OBS. 10.--An affix, or termination, differs from a distinct word; and is commonly understood otherwise, though it may consist of the same letters and have the same sound. Thus, if I were to write _Stow Bridge_, it would be understood of a _bridge_; if _s...o...b..idge_, of a _town_: or the latter might even be the name of a _family_. So _Belleisle_ is the proper name of a _strait_; and _Belle Isle_ of several different _islands_ in France and America. Upon this plain distinction, and the manifest inconvenience of any violation of so clear an a.n.a.logy of the language, depends the propriety of most of the corrections which I shall offer under Rule 6th. But if the inhabitants of any place choose to call their town a creek, a river, a harbour, or a bridge, and to think it officious in other men to pretend to know better, they may do as they please. If between them and their correctors there lie a mutual charge of misnomer, it is for the literary world to determine who is right. Important names are sometimes acquired by mere accident. Those which are totally inappropriate, no reasonable design can have bestowed. Thus a fancied resemblance between the island of Aquidneck, in Narraganset Bay, and that of Rhodes, in the aegean Sea, has at length given to a _state_, or _republic_, which lies _chiefly on the main land_, the absurd name of _Rhode Island_; so that now, to distinguish Aquidneck itself, geographers resort to the strange phrase, "_the Island of Rhode Island_."--_Balbi_. The official t.i.tle of this little republic, is, "_the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_." But this name is not only too long for popular use, but it is doubtful in its construction and meaning. It is capable of being understood in four different ways. 1. A stranger to the fact, would not learn from this phrase, that the "Providence Plantations" are included in the "State of Rhode Island," but would naturally infer the contrary. 2. The phrase, "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," may be supposed to mean "Rhode Island [Plantations] and Providence Plantations." 3. It may be understood to mean "Rhode Island and Providence [i.e., two] Plantations." 4. It may be taken for "Rhode Island" [i.e., as an island,] and the "Providence Plantations."

Which, now, of all these did Charles the Second mean, when he gave the colony this name, with his charter, in 1663? It happened that he meant the last; but I doubt whether any man in the state, except perhaps some learned lawyer, can _pa.r.s.e_ the phrase, with any certainty of its true construction and meaning. This old t.i.tle can never be used, except in law. To write the popular name "_Rhodeisland_," as Dr. Webster has it in his American Spelling-Book, p. 121, would be some improvement upon it; but to make it _Rhodeland_, or simply _Rhode_, would be much more appropriate. As for _Rhode Island_, it ought to mean nothing but the island; and it is, in fact, _an abuse of language_ to apply it otherwise. In one of his parsing lessons, Sanborn gives us for good English the following tautology: "_Rhode Island_ derived its name from the _island of Rhode Island_."--_a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 37. Think of that sentence!

OBS. 11.--On Rules 7th and 8th, concerning _Two Capitals for Compounds_, I would observe, with a general reference to those _compound terms_ which designate particular places or things, that it is often no easy matter to determine, either from custom or from a.n.a.logy, whether such common words as may happen to be embraced in them, are to be accounted parts of compound proper names and written with capitals, or to be regarded as appellatives, requiring small letters according to Rule 9th. Again the question may be, whether they ought not to be joined to the foregoing word, according to Rule 6th. Let the numerous examples under these four rules be duly considered: for usage, in respect to each of them, is diverse; so much so, that we not unfrequently find it contradictory, in the very same page, paragraph, or even sentence. Perhaps we may reach some principles of uniformity and consistency, by observing the several different kinds of phrases thus used. 1. We often add an adjective to an old proper name to make a new one, or to serve the purpose of distinction: as, Now York, New Orleans, New England, New Bedford; North America, South America; Upper Canada, Lower Canada; Great Pedee, Little Pedee; East Cambridge, West Cambridge; Troy, West Troy. All names of this cla.s.s require two capitals: except a few which are joined together; as _Northampton_, which is sometimes more a.n.a.logically written _North Hampton_. 2. We often use the possessive case with some common noun after it; as, Behring's Straits, Baffin's Bay, Cook's Inlet, Van Diemen's Land, Martha's Vineyard, Sacket's Harbour, Glenn's Falls. Names of this cla.s.s generally have more than one capital; and perhaps all of them should be written so, except such as coalesce; as, Gravesend, Moorestown, the Crowsnest. 3. We sometimes use two common nouns with _of_ between them; as, the Cape of Good Hope, the Isle of Man, the Isles of Shoals, the Lake of the Woods, the Mountains of the Moon.

Such nouns are usually written with more than one capital. I would therefore write "the Mount of Olives" in this manner, though it is not commonly found so in the Bible. 4. We often use an adjective and a common noun; as, the Yellow sea, the Indian ocean, the White hills, Crooked lake, the Red river; or, with two capitals, the Yellow Sea, the Indian Ocean, the White Hills, Crooked Lake, the Red River. In this cla.s.s of names the adjective is the distinctive word, and always has a capital; respecting the other term, usage is divided, but seems rather to favour two capitals. 5.

We frequently put an appellative, or common noun, before or after a proper name; as, New York city, Was.h.i.+ngton street, Plymouth county, Greenwich village. "The Carondelet ca.n.a.l extends from the city of New Orleans to the bayou St. John, connecting lake Pontchartrain with the Mississippi river."--_Balbi's Geog._ This is apposition. In phrases of this kind, the common noun often has a capital, but it seldom absolutely requires it; and in general a small letter is more correct, except in some few instances in which the common noun is regarded as a permanent part of the name; as in _Was.h.i.+ngton City, Jersey City_. The words _Mount, Cape, Lake_, and _Bay_, are now generally written with capitals when connected with their proper names; as, Mount Hope, Cape Cod, Lake Erie, Cas...o...b..y. But they are not always so written, even in modern books; and in the Bible we read of "mount h.o.r.eb, mount Sinai, mount Zion, mount Olivet," and many others, always with a single capital.

OBS. 12.--In modern compound names, the hyphen is now less frequently used than it was a few years ago. They seldom, if ever, need it, unless they are employed as adjectives; and then there is a manifest propriety in inserting it. Thus the phrase, "the New London Bridge," can be understood only of a new bridge in London; and if we intend by it a bridge in New London, we must say, "the New-London Bridge." So "the New York Directory" is not properly a directory for New York, but a new directory for York. I have seen several books with t.i.tles which, for this reason, were evidently erroneous. With respect to the ancient Scripture names, of this cla.s.s, we find, in different editions of the Bible, as well as in other books, many discrepancies. The reader may see a very fair specimen of them, by comparing together the last two vocabularies of Walker's Key. He will there meet with an abundance of examples like these: "Uz'zen Sherah, Uzzen-sherah; Talitha c.u.mi, Talithac.u.mi; Nathan Melech, Nathan'-melech; A'bel Meholath, Abel-meholah; Hazel Elponi, Hazeleponi; Az'noth Tabor, Asnoth-tabor; Baal Ham'on, Baal-hamon; Hamon Gog, Ham'ongog; Baal Zebub, Baal'zebub; Shethar Boz'nai, Shether-boz'nai; Merodach Bal'adan, Merodach-bal'adan." All these glaring inconsistencies, and many more, has Dr. Webster restereotyped from Walker, in his octavo Dictionary! I see no more need of the hyphen in such names, than in those of modern times. They ought, in some instances, to be joined together without it; and, in others, to be written separately, with double capitals. But special regard should be had to the ancient text. The phrase, "Talitha, c.u.mi,"--i. e., "Damsel, arise,"--is found in some Bibles, "Talitha-c.u.mi;" but this form of it is no more correct than either of those quoted above. See _Mark_, v, 41st, in _Griesbach's Greek Testament_, where a comma divides this expression.

OBS. 13.--On Rule 10th, concerning _Personifications_, it may be well to observe, that not every noun which is the name of an object personified, must begin with a capital, but only such as have a resemblance to _proper nouns_; for the word _person_ itself, or _persons_, or any other common noun denoting persons or a person, demands no such distinction. And proper names of persons are so marked, not with any reference to personality, but because they are _proper nouns_--or names of individuals, and not names of sorts. Thus, aesop's viper and file are both personified, where it is recorded, "'What ails thee, fool?' says the _file_ to the _viper_;" but the fable gives to these names no capitals, except in the t.i.tle of the story.

It may here be added, that, according to their definitions of personification, our grammarians and the teachers of rhetoric have hitherto formed no very accurate idea of what const.i.tutes the figure. Lindley Murray says, "PERSONIFICATION [,] or PROSOPOPOEIA, is that figure by which we attribute _life_ and _action_ to _inanimate_ objects."--_Octavo Gram._, p.

346; _Duodecimo_, p. 211. Now this is all wrong, doubly wrong,--wrong in relation to what personification is, and wrong too in its specification of the objects which may be personified. For "_life and action_" not being peculiar to _persons_, there must be something else than these ascribed, to form the figure; and, surely, the objects which _Fancy_ thinks it right to personify, are not always "_inanimate_." I have elsewhere defined the thing as follows: "_Personification_ is a figure by which, in imagination, we ascribe intelligence and personality to unintelligent beings or abstract qualities."--_Inst._, p. 234.

OBS. 14.--On Rule 11th, concerning _Derivatives_, I would observe, that not only the proper adjectives, to which this rule more particularly refers, but also nouns, and even verbs, derived from such adjectives, are frequently, if not generally, written with an initial capital. Thus, from _Greece_, we have _Greek, Greeks, Greekish, Greekling, Grecise, Grecism, Grecian, Grecians, Grecianize_. So Murray, copying Blair, speaks of "_Latinised English_;" and, again, of style strictly "_English_, without _Scotticisms_ or _Gallicisms_."--_Mur. Gram._, 8vo, p. 295; _Blair's Lect._, pp. 93 and 94. But it is questionable, how far this principle respecting capitals ought to be carried. The examples in Dr. Johnson's quarto Dictionary exhibit the words, _gallicisms, anglicisms, hebrician, latinize, latinized, judaized_, and _christianized_, without capitals; and the words _Latinisms, Grecisms, Hebraisms_, and _Frenchified_, under like circ.u.mstances, with them. Dr. Webster also defines _Romanize_, "To _Latinize_; to conform to _Romish_ opinions." In the examples of Johnson, there is a manifest inconsistency. Now, with respect to adjectives from proper names, and also to the nouns formed immediately from such adjectives, it is clear that they ought to have capitals: no one will contend that the words _American_ and _Americans_ should be written with a small _a_. With respect to _Americanism, Gallicism_, and other similar words, there may be some room to doubt. But I prefer a capital for these.

And, that we may have a uniform rule to go by, I would not stop here, but would write _Americanize_ and _Americanized_ with a capital also; for it appears that custom is in favour of thus distinguis.h.i.+ng nearly all verbs and participles of this kind, so long as they retain an obvious reference to their particular origin. But when any such word ceases to be understood as referring directly to the proper name, it may properly be written without a capital. Thus we write _jalap_ from _Jalapa, hermetical_ from _Hermes, hymeneal_ from _Hymen, simony_, from _Simon, philippic_ from _Philip_; the verbs, to _hector_, to _romance_, to _j.a.pan_, to _christen_, to _philippize_, to _galvanize_; and the adverbs _hermetically_ and _jesuitically_, all without a capital: and perhaps _judaize, christianize_, and their derivatives, may join this cla.s.s. Dr. Webster's octavo Dictionary mentions "the _prussic_ acid" and "_prussian_ blue," without a capital; and so does Worcester's.

OBS. 15.--On Rule 12th, concerning _I_ and _O_, it may be observed, that although many who occasionally write, are ignorant enough to violate this, as well as every other rule of grammar, yet no printer ever commits blunders of this sort. Consequently, the few erroneous examples which will be exhibited for correction under it, will not be undesigned mistakes.

Among the errors of books, we do not find the printing of the words _I_ and _O_ in small characters; but the confounding of _O_ with the other interjection _oh_, is not uncommon even among grammarians. The latter has no concern with this rule, nor is it equivalent to the former, as a sign: _O_ is a note of wis.h.i.+ng, earnestness, and vocative address; but _oh_ is, properly, a sign of sorrow, pain, or surprise. In the following example, therefore, a line from Milton is perverted:--

"_Oh_ thou! that with surpa.s.sing glory crowned!"

--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 88.

OBS. 16.--On Rule 13th, concerning _Poetry_, it may be observed, that the principle applies only to regular versification, which is the common form, if not the distinguis.h.i.+ng mark, of poetical composition. And, in this, the practice of beginning every line with a capital is almost universal; but I have seen some books in which it was whimsically disregarded. Such poetry as that of Macpherson's Ossian, or such as the common translation of the Psalms, is subjected neither to this rule, nor to the common laws of verse.

OBS. 17.--On Rule 14th, concerning _Examples, Speeches_, and _Quotations_, it may be observed, that the propriety of beginning these with a capital or otherwise, depends in some measure upon their form. One may suggest certain words by way of example, (as _see, saw, seeing, seen_,) and they will require no capital; or he may sometimes write one half of a sentence in his own words, and quote the other with the guillemets and no capital; but whatsoever is cited as being said with other relations of what is called _person_, requires something to distinguish it from the text into which it is woven. Thus Cobbett observes, that, "The French, in their Bible, say _Le Verbe_, where we say _The Word_."--_E. Gram._, p. 21. Cobbett says _the whole_ of this; but he here refers one short phrase to the French nation, and an other to the English, not improperly beginning each with a capital, and further distinguis.h.i.+ng them by Italics. Our common Bibles make no use of the quotation points, but rely solely upon capitals and the common points, to show where any particular speech begins or ends. In some instances, the insufficiency of these means is greatly felt, notwithstanding the extraordinary care of the original writers, in the use of introductory phrases. Murray says, "When a quotation is brought in obliquely after a comma, a capital is unnecessary: as, 'Solomon observes, "that pride goes before destruction."'"--_Octavo Gram._, p. 284. But, as the word '_that_' belongs not to Solomon, and the next word begins his a.s.sertion, I think we ought to write it, "Solomon observes, that, '_Pride goeth_ before destruction.'" Or, if we do not mean to quote him literally, we may omit the guillemets, and say, "Solomon observes that pride goes before destruction."

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

ERRORS RESPECTING CAPITALS.

[Fist][The improprieties in the following examples are to be corrected orally by the learner, according to the formules given, or according to others framed from them with such slight changes as the several quotations may require. A correct example will occasionally he admitted for the sake of contrast, or that the learner may see the quoted author's inconsistency.

It will also serve as a block over which stupidity may stumble and wake up.

But a full explanation of what is intended, will be afforded in the Key.]

UNDER RULE I.--OF BOOKS.

"Many a reader of the bible knows not who wrote the acts of the apostles."--_G. B._

[FORMULE OF CORRECTION.--Not proper, because the words, _bible, acts_, and _apostles_, here begin with small letters. But, according to Rule 1st, "When particular books are mentioned by their names, the chief words in their t.i.tles begin with capitals, and the other letters are small."

Therefore, "Bible" should begin with a capital B; and "Acts" and "Apostles," each with a large A.]

"The sons of Levi, the chief of the fathers, were written in the book of the chronicles."--SCOTT'S BIBLE: _Neh._, xii, 23. "Are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?"--SCOTT, ALGER: I _Kings_, xi, 41. "Are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?"--ALGER: _1 Kings_, xxii, 39. "Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?"--SCOTT: _ib._, ver. 45. "Which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms."--SCOTT: _Luke_, xxiv, 44. "The narrative of which may be seen in Josephus's History of the Jewish wars."--_Scott's Preface_, p. ix. "This history of the Jewish war was Josephus's first work, and published about A.

D. 75."--_Note to Josephus_. "'I have read,' says Photius, 'the chronology of Justus of Tiberias.'"--_Ib., Jos. Life_. "A philosophical grammar, written by James Harris, Esquire."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 34. "The reader is referred to Stroud's sketch of the slave laws."--_Anti-Slavery Mag._, i, 25. "But G.o.d has so made the bible that it interprets itself."--_Ib._, i, 78. "In 1562, with the help of Hopkins, he completed the psalter."--_Music of Nature_, p. 283. "Gardiner says this of _Sternhold_; of whom the universal biographical dictionary and the American encyclopedia affirm, that he died in 1549."--_Author_. "The t.i.tle of a Book, to wit: 'English Grammar in familiar lectures,'" &c.--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 2. "We had not, at that time, seen Mr. Kirkham's 'Grammar in familiar Lectures.'"--_Ib._, p. 3. "When you pa.r.s.e, you may spread the Compendium before you."--_Ib._, p. 53. "Whenever you pa.r.s.e, you may spread the compendium before you."--_Ib._, p. 113. "Adelung was the author of a grammatical and critical dictionary of the German language, and other works."--_Univ. Biog. Dict._ "Alley, William, author of 'the poor man's library,' and a translation of the Pentateuch, died in 1570."--_Ib._

UNDER RULE II.--OF FIRST WORDS.

"Depart instantly: improve your time: forgive us our sins."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 61.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the words _improve_ and _forgive_ begin with small letters. But, according to Rule 2nd, "The first word of every distinct sentence should begin with a capital." Therefore, "Improve" should begin with a capital I; and "Forgive," with a capital F.]

EXAMPLES: "Gold is corrupting; the sea is green; a lion is bold."--_Mur.

Gram._, p. 170; _et al_. Again: "It may rain; he may go or stay; he would walk; they should learn."--_Ib._, p. 64; _et al_. Again: "Oh! I have alienated my friend; alas! I fear for life."--_Ib._, p. 128; _et al_.

Again: "He went from London to York;" "she is above disguise;" "they are supported by industry."--_Ib._, p. 28; _et al_. "On the foregoing examples, I have a word to say. they are better than a fair specimen of their kind, our grammars abound with worse ill.u.s.trations, their models of English are generally spurious quotations. few of their proof-texts have any just parentage, goose-eyes are abundant, but names scarce. who fathers the foundlings? n.o.body. then let their merit be n.o.body's, and their defects his who could write no better."--_Author_. "_goose-eyes_!" says a bright boy; "pray, what are they? does this Mr. Author make new words when he pleases?

_dead-eyes_ are in a s.h.i.+p, they are blocks, with holes in them, but what are goose-eyes in grammar?" ANSWER: "_goose-eyes_ are quotation points, some of the Germans gave them this name, making a jest of their form, the French call them _guillemets_, from the name of their inventor."--_Author.

"it_ is a personal p.r.o.noun, of the third person singular."--_Comly's Gram._, 12th Ed., p. 126. "_ourselves_ is a personal p.r.o.noun, of the first person plural."--_Ib._, 138. "_thee_ is a personal p.r.o.noun, of the second person singular."--_Ib._, 126. "_contentment_ is a noun common, of the third person singular."--_Ib._, 128. "_were_ is a neuter verb, of the indicative mood, imperfect tense."--_Ib._, 129.

UNDER RULE III.--OF DEITY.

"O thou dispenser of life! thy mercies are boundless."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 449.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the word _dispenser_ begins with a small letter. But, according to Rule 3d, "All names of the Deity, and sometimes their emphatic subst.i.tutes, should begin with capitals." Therefore, "Dispenser" should here begin with a capital D.]

"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"--SCOTT: _Gen._, xviii, 25.