The Grammar of English Grammars - Goold Brown (spiritual books to read TXT) 📗

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 God take the nature of proper names, only when they are used in reference to the Eternal Divinity. The former, as a title 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 gods, whether in heaven or in earth—as there be gods 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 God, and a great King above all Gods."—Gurney's Essays, p. 88. Perhaps the writer here exalts the inferior beings called gods, that he may honour the one true God the more; but the Bible, in four editions to which I have turned, gives the word gods no capital. See Psalms, xcv, 3. The word Heaven put for God, 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 God of hosts;"—"The God 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 classes 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 embarrassment. 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 assertion 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, Hell, 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, institutions, 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, Saturday; 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 Titles 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., xxxvi, 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 illustrations 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 passed 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, Marshill, 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 shire; as, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, &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 Derwentwater."—Balbi's Geog., p. 212. "Ulswater, a lake of England," &c. "Derwent-Water, a lake in Cumberland," &c.—Univ. Gazetteer, "Ulleswater, lake, Eng. situated partly in Westmoreland," &c.—Worcester's Gaz. "Derwent Water, lake, Eng. in Cumberland."—Ibid. These words, I suppose, should be written Ullswater and Derwentwater.

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 Stowbridge, 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 analogy 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