Читать книгу The Grammar of English Grammars - Goold Brown - Страница 259

OBS. 1.—This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied, than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in ous, as generous, there are about 850. Of those in y or ly, as shaggy, homely, there are about 550. Of those in ive, as deceptive, there are about 400. Of those in al, as autumnal, there are about 550. Of those in ical, as mechanical, there are about 350. Of those in able, as valuable, there are about 600. Of those in ible, as credible, there are about 200. Of those in ent, as different, there are about 300. Of those in ant, as abundant, there are about 170. Of those in less, as ceaseless, there are about 220. Of those in ful, as useful, there are about 130. Of those in ory, as explanatory, there are about 200. Of those in ish, as childish, there are about 100. Of those in ine, as masculine, there are about 70. Of those in en, as wooden, there are about 50. Of those in some, as quarrelsome, there are about 30. These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.—The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns: as, European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics. But with the words English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root. Examples: Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole, or Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks. When we say, the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish—meaning, the English people, the French people, &c., many grammarians conceive that English, French, &c., are indeclinable nouns. But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them adjectives, relating to the noun men or people understood. For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, the good, the great, the wise, the learned.[168] The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more say, an English, an Irish, or a French, for an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Frenchman; than we can say, an old, a selfish, or a rich, for an old man, a selfish man, or a rich man. Yet, in distinguishing the languages, we call them English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is different: as, Arabic, and not Arab; Danish, and not Dane; Swedish, and not Swede. In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words nouns; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, English and Latin; and both of these he calls adjectives: "ENGLISH, adj. Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language of England." The word Latin, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for making of Latins."

OBS. 3.—Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, n. sing. and plu. A native of China; also the language of China."—"JAPANESE, n. A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."—"GENOESE, n. pl. the people of Genoa in Italy. Addison."—"DANISH, n. The language of the Danes."—"IRISH, n. 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, a Chinese, a Japanese, or an Irish; but not, a Genoese, because he will have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland an Irish, will not more than one be Irishes?[170] If a native of Japan be a Japanese, will not more than one be Japaneses? In short, is it not plain, that the words, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;—that, like English, French, &c., they are always adjectives; except, perhaps, when they denote languages? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China a Chinese—of Japan a Japanese—&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, Chineses, Japaneses, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: "The Chinese are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress."—Balbi's Geog., p. 415. "The Japanese excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."—Ib., p. 419. "The Portuguese are of the same origin with the Spaniards."—Ib., p. 272. "By whom the undaunted Tyrolese are led."—Wordsworth's Poems, p. 122. Again: "Amongst the Portugueses, 'tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to learn to Read, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it."—Locke, on Education, p. 271. "The Malteses do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."—Idem, Edition of 1669, p. 5. "CHINESE, n. s. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, Chineses. Sir T. Herbert."—Abridgement of Todd's Johnson. This is certainly absurd. For if Chinese is used elliptically for the people of China, it is an adjective, and does not form the plural, Chineses: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even a Japanese: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of that country."—Diversions of Purley, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said—"beneath even a native of Japan;" because, whether Japanese be a noun or not, it is absurd to call a Japanese, "that country." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word Chineses; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:

"But in his way lights on the barren plains

Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive

With sails and wind their cany waggons light." —Paradise Lost, B. iii, l. 437.

OBS. 4.—The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, cardinal, ordinal, and multiplicative: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:—

1. Cardinal; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.

2. Ordinal; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.

3. Multiplicative; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.

OBS. 5.—A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: "One denotes simply the number one, without any regard to more; but first has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and two means the number two completely; but second, the last one of two: and so of all the rest."—Burn's Gram., p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, "How many?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "Which one?" or, "What one?" All the ordinal numbers, except first, second, third, and the compounds of these, as twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination th. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, forty-ninth, and not fortieth-ninth; nor could the meaning of the phrase, four hundred and fiftieth, be expressed by saying, fourth hundredth and fiftieth; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.

OBS. 6.—Some of the numerals are often used as nouns; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives, &c. So, Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths, &c. "The seventy's translation."—Wilson's Hebrew Gram., p. 32. "I will not do it for forty's sake."—Gen., xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for twenty's sake."—Ib., ver. 31. "For ten's sake."—Ib., ver. 32. "They sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties."—Mark, vi, 40. "There are millions of truths that a man is not concerned to know."—Locke. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven twenty-fifths. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah," we now generally say, the twenty-first, the twenty-second, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds till we arrive at one hundred, or one hundredth, and then first introducing the word and; as, one hundred and one, or one hundred and first, &c.

OBS. 7.—The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of these are much oftener something else: All, any, both, certain, divers, each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first, latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no or none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that, this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever, whichsoever.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if the word one is not an exception; namely, each, either, every, neither, one, that, this: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word many is not an exception; namely, both, divers, few, fewer, fewest, many, several, sundry, these, those. All the rest, like our common adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. Else, every, only, no, and none, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made to represent its noun understood. "Nor has Vossius, or any else that I know of, observed it."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 279. Say, "or any one else." Dr. Webster explains this word else thus: "ELSE, a. or pron. [Sax. elles] Other; one or something beside; as, Who else is coming?"—Octavo Dict. "Each and every of them," is an old phrase in which every is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, every one, every man, &c., never using the word every alone to suggest its noun. Only is perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to which it belongs; as, "Neither are they the only [verbs] in which it is read."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 373. "But I think he is the only [one] of these Authors."—Ib., p. 193. No and none seem to be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed after the adjective; as, "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself."—Romans, xiv, 7. None was anciently used for no before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, "They are sottish children; and they have none understanding."—Jeremiah, iv, 22. This practice is now obsolete. None is still used, when its noun precedes it; as,

"Fools! who from hence into the notion fall,

That vice or virtue there is none at all."—Pope.

OBS. 8.—Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used adverbially. They are the following: All, when it means totally; any, for in any degree; else, meaning otherwise; enough, signifying sufficiently; first, for in the first place; last, for in the last place; little, for in a small degree; less, for in a smaller degree; least, for in the smallest degree; much, for in a great degree; more, for in a greater degree; most, for in the greatest degree; no, or none, for in no degree; only, for singly, merely, barely; what, for in what degree, or in how great a degree.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word other, when used as an alternative to somehow; as, "Somehow or other he will be favoured."—Butler's Analogy, p. 89. Here other seems to be put for otherwise; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. "Somewhere or other," is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, "In some way or other,"—"In someplace or other?" In the following examples, however, other seems to be used for otherwise, without such a connection: "How is THAT used, other than as a Conjunction?"—Ainsworth's Gram., p. 88.

"Will it not be receiv'd that they have done 't?

—Who dares receive it other?"—SHAK.: Joh. Dict., w. Other.

OBS. 9.—All and enough, little and much, more and less, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as nouns. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, the all, for the whole, nor an enough, for a sufficiency. And though a little, the more, and the less, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, "Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved."—2 Cor., xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, "They have much of the poetry of Mecænas, but little of his liberality."—DRYDEN: in Joh. Dict. Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, "Some of the poetry,"—"Any of the poetry,"—"The best of Poetry," &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, "Nearly all of us."

OBS. 10.—The following are some of Dr. Johnson's "nouns;" which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: "'Then shall we be news-crammed.'—'All the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'"—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "All the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business."—BEN JONSON: ib. "'Tis enough for me to have endeavoured the union of my country."—TEMPLE: ib. "Ye take too much upon you."—NUMBERS: ib. "The fate of love is such, that still it sees too little or too much."—DRYDEN: ib. "He thought not much to clothe his enemies."—MILTON: ib. "There remained not so much as one of them."—Ib., Exod., xiv, 28. "We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as thou shalt need."—Ib., 2 Chronicles. "The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any more was created, then there must be as much annihilated to make room for it."—BURNET: ib. "The Lord do so, and much more, to Jonathan."—1 SAMUEL: ib. "They that would have more and more, can never have enough; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice."—L'ESTRANGE: ib. "They gathered some more, some less."—EXODUS: ib. "Thy servant knew nothing of this, less or more."—1 SAMUEL: ib. The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: "That is, 'Every thing is the better.'—Every thing is the fitter."—Quarto Dict. The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, "So much the better,"—"None the fitter," would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: much and none are here, very clearly, adverbs.

OBS. 11.—Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus all, when it signifies the whole, or every thing, may be reckoned a noun; as, "Our all is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success."—Addison. "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."—Id. "The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and all."—L'Estrange.

"Finding, the wretched all they here can have, But present food, and but a future grave."—Prior.

"And will she yet debase her eyes on me;

On me, whose all not equals Edward's moiety?"—Shak.

"Thou shalt be all in all, and I in thee, Forever; and in me all whom thou lov'st."—Milton.

OBS. 12.—There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. Both, when it stands as a correspondent to and, is reckoned a conjunction; as, "For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one."—Heb., ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: "Language and manners are both established by the usage of people of fashion."—Amer. Chesterfield, p. 83. So either, corresponding to or, and neither, referring to nor, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. Which and what, with their compounds, whichever or whichsoever, whatever or whatsoever, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, "There is a witness of God, which witness gives true judgement."—I. Penington. Here the word witness might be omitted, and which would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives."—Gram., p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.

OBS. 13.—The words one and other, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One. So, like the French on, or l'on, the word one, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [better, one's self] unspotted from the world."—James, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: "If one did but dare to abide by one's own judgement, one's language would be much more refined; but one fancies one's self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead one."—See Churchill's Gram., p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: "If we did but dare to abide by our own judgement, our language would be much more refined; but we fancy ourselves obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead us."—See ib.

OBS. 14.—Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: "Each, every, and either, are called distributives; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. This, that, former, latter, both, neither, are termed demonstratives; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. This has these for its plural; that has those. This and that are frequently put in opposition to each other; this, to express what is nearer in place or time; that, what is more remote. All, any, one, other, some, such, are termed indefinite. Another is merely other in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] Other, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,

'Teach me to feel an other's wo, to hide the fault I see; That mercy I to others show, that mercy show to me.'—Pope.

Each other and one another, when used in conjunction, may be termed reciprocals; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, between[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason."—Churchill's Gram., p. 76.

OBS. 15.—The reciprocal terms each other and one an other divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. Each other, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; one an other, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, "Brutus and Aruns killed each other." That is, Each combatant killed the other. "The disciples were commanded to love one an other, and to be willing to wash one an other's feet." That is, All the disciples were commanded to love mutually; for both terms, one and other, or one disciple and an other disciple, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of different cases; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.

OBS. 16.—Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word other, has the following: "Correlative to each, and applicable to any number of individuals."—Octavo Dict. "Other is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case."—Ib. Now it is plain, that the word other, as a "correlative to each," may be so far "a substitute for a noun" as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, "Lock'd in each other's arms they lay." But, that the objective other, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable—"to any number of individuals," I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, "The ambitious strive to excel each others." But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, "They all strive to excel each other." Because the explanation must be, "Each strives to excel other;" and such a construction of the word other is not agreeable to modern usage. Each other is therefore not equivalent to one an other, but nearer perhaps to the one the other: as, "The two generals are independent the one of the other."—Voltaire's Charles XII, p. 67. "And these are contrary the one to the other."—Gal., v, 17. "The necessary connexion of the one with the other."—Blair's Rhet., p. 304. The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French l'un l'autre, and in some instances to be preferred to each other; as,

"So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep,

To take the one the other, by some chance."—Shak.

OBS. 17.—The Greek term for the reciprocals each other and one an other, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], other; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allælon], the dative, [Greek: allælois], the accusative, [Greek: allælous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the objective;—that is, we put each or one before the objective other. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in one an other admits of none; and each other, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: "The two men were ready to cut each others' throats." But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut "others' throats;" and since, between the two, there was but one throat for each to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, "each other's throat." So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:

"'Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair,

In others' arms, breathe out the tender tale." —Cotter's Sat. Night.

He meant, "In each other's arms;" the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of each other, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, "They love each others," there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, each others', would not be improper; as, "Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at each other's houses."—Johnson's Life of Swift. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. "The citizens of different states should know each others characters."—Webster's Essays, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, "each others' characters," or say, "one an other's character."

OBS. 18.—One and other are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by les uns—les autres; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: "Il les séparera les uns d'avec les autres." That is, "He shall separate them some from others;"—or, literally, "the ones from the others." Our version is: "He shall separate them one from an other."—Matt., xxv, 32. Beza has it: "Separabit eos alteros ab alteris." The Vulgate: "Separabit eos ab invicem." The Greek: "[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allælon]." To separate many "one from an other," seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell's version, we read: "And out of them he will separate the good from the bad, as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats." Better, perhaps, thus: "And he shall separate them, the righteous from the wicked, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."

OBS. 19.—Dr. Bullions says, "One and other refer to the singular only."—Eng. Gram., p. 98. Of ones and others he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a plural meaning to the singulars one and other, the following sentences need amendment: "The one preach Christ of contention; but the other, of love."—Philippians, i, 16. Here "the one" is put for "the one class," and "the other" for "the other class;" the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one. "The confusion arises, when the one will put their sickle into the other's harvest."—LESLEY: in Joh. Dict. This may be corrected by saying, "the one party," or, "the one nation," in stead of "the one." "It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern the one from the other."—Barclay's Works, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, "the ones from the others," it will be proper here. Again: "I have seen children at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen others cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That one was accustomed to have what they called or cried for; the other to go without it?"—Locke, on Education, p. 55. Here, (with were for was,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, the ones—the others; the latter—the former; or, the importunate—the modest. "Those nice shades, by which virtues and vices approach each one another."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 350. This expression should be any thing, rather than what it is. Say, "By which virtue and vice approach each other." Or: "By which certain virtues and vices approximate—blend—become difficult of distinction."

OBS. 20.—"Most authors have given the name of pronoun adjectives, ['pronouns adjective,' or 'pronominal adjectives,'] to my, mine; our, ours; thy, thine; your, yours; his, her, hers; their, theirs: perhaps because they are followed by, or refer to, some substantive [expressed or understood after them]. But, were they adjectives, they must either express the quality of their substantive, or limit its extent: adjectives properly so called, do the first; definitive pronouns do the last. All adjectives [that are either singular or plural,] agree with their substantives in number; but I can say, 'They are my books:' my is singular, and books plural; therefore my is not an adjective. Besides, my does not express the quality of the books, but only ascertains the possessor, the same as the genitive or substantive does, to which it is similar. Examples: 'They are my books;'—'They are John's books;' &c."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 108.

OBS. 21.—To the class of Participial Adjectives, should be referred all such words as the following: (1.) The simple participles made adjectives by position; as. "A roaring lion,"—"A raging bear,"—"A brawling woman,"—"A flattering mouth,"—"An understanding heart,"—"Burning coals,"—"The hearing ear, and the seeing eye."—Bible. "A troubled fountain,"—"A wounded spirit,"—"An appointed time."—Ib. (2.) Words of a participial appearance, formed from nouns by adding ed; as, "The eve thy sainted mother died."—W. Scott. "What you write of me, would make me more conceited, than what I scribble myself."—Pope. (3.) Participles, or participial adjectives, reversed in sense by the prefix un; as, unaspiring, unavailing, unbelieving, unbattered, uninjured, unbefriended. (4.) Words of a participial form construed elliptically, as if they were nouns; as, "Among the dying and the dead."—"The called of Jesus Christ."—Rom., i, 6. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you."—1 Pet., ii, 11. "The redeemed of the Lord shall return."—Isaiah, li, 11. "They talk, to the grief of thy wounded."—Psalms, lxix, 26: Margin.

OBS. 22.—In the text, Prov., vii, 26, "She hath cast down many wounded," wounded is a participle; because the meaning is, "many men wounded," and not, "many wounded men." Our Participial Adjectives are exceedingly numerous. It is not easy to ascertain how many there are of them; because almost any simple participle may be set before a noun, and thus become an adjective: as,

"Where smiling spring its earliest visit paid, And parting summer's ling'ring blooms delay'd."—Goldsmith.

OBS. 23.—Compound Adjectives, being formed at pleasure, are both numerous and various. In their formation, however, certain analogies may be traced: (1.) Many of them are formed by joining an adjective to its noun, and giving to the latter the participial termination ed; as, able-bodied, sharp-sighted, left-handed, full-faced, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, cloven-footed, high-heeled. (2.) In some, two nouns are joined, the latter assuming ed, as above; as, bell-shaped, hawk-nosed, eagle-sighted, lion-hearted, web-footed. (3.) In some, the object of an active participle is placed before it; as, money-getting, time-serving, self-consuming, cloud-compelling, fortune-hunting, sleep-disturbing. (4.) Some, embracing numerals, form a series, though it is seldom carried far; as, one-legged, two-legged, three-legged, four-legged. So, one-leaved, two-leaved, three-leaved, four-leaved: or, perhaps better as Webster will have them, one-leafed, two-leafed, &c. But, upon the same principle, short-lived, should be short-lifed, and long-lived, long-lifed. (5.) In some, there is a combination of an adjective and a participle; as, noble-looking, high-sounding, slow-moving, thorough-going, hard-finished, free-born, heavy-laden, only-begotten. (6.) In some, we find an adverb and a participle united; as, ever-living, ill-judging, well-pleasing, far-shooting, forth-issuing, back-sliding, ill-trained, down-trodden, above-mentioned. (7.) Some consist of a noun and a participle which might be reversed with a preposition between them; as, church-going, care-crazed, travel-soiled, blood-bespotted, dew-sprinkled. (8.) A few, and those inelegant, terminate with a preposition; as, unlooked-for, long-looked-for, unthought-of, unheard-of. (9.) Some are phrases of many words, converted into one part of speech by the hyphen; as, "Where is the ever-to-be-honoured Chaucer?"—Wordsworth.

"And, with God-only-knows-how-gotten light, Informs the nation what is wrong or right." —Snelling's Gift for Scribblers, p. 49.

OBS. 24.—Nouns derived from compound adjectives, are generally disapproved by good writers; yet we sometimes meet with them: as, hard-heartedness, for hardness of heart, or cruelty; quick-sightedness, for quickness of sight, or perspicacity; worldly-mindedness, for devotion to the world, or love of gain; heavenly-mindedness, for the love of God, or true piety. In speaking of ancestors or descendants, we take the noun, father, mother, son, daughter, or child; prefix the adjective grand; for the second generation; great, for the, third; and then, sometimes, repeat the same, for degrees more remote: as, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather. "What would my great-grandmother say, thought I, could she know that thou art to be chopped up for fuel to warm the frigid fingers of her great-great-great-granddaughters!"—T. H. Bayley.