THE COMIC ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

THE COMIC

ENGLISH GRAMMAR;

A NEW AND FACETIOUS
Introduction to the English Tongue.

BY THE AUTHOR OF THE COMIC LATIN GRAMMAR.

EMBELLISHED
WITH UPWARDS OF FIFTY CHARACTERISTIC ILLUSTRATIONS BY J. LEECH.

LONDON:
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET.
1840.

TO MR. GEORGE ROBINS,

A Writer unrivalled in this or any other Age for

AN ORIGINALITY OF STYLE,

(if the expression may be pardoned) quite unique, and a Dexterity in the Use
of Metaphor unparalleled; whose multifarious and sublime—it would not
be too much to say talented—Compositions would, it may be fearlessly
asserted, afford any

ENTERPRISING PUBLISHER
a not-every-day-to-be-met-with, and not in-a-hurry-to-be-relinquished opportunity
for an

ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL,

forming a Property which, under judicious management, would soon become
entitled to the well-merited appellation of a

PRINCELY DOMAIN!

which, without exciting a blush in the mind of veracity, might be said (in a
literary point of view) to be fertilised by a meandering rivulet of Poetry,
comparable for Beauty and Picturesque Effect to

THE SILVERY STREAM OF THE ISIS;

whose richness (equalled only by his fidelity) of description, presenting a refreshing
contrast to the style of his various compeers, precludes the attempt
to perpetrate a panegyric, otherwise than by assuming the responsibility and
risk of applying to him the words of our

IMMORTAL BARD:

“Take him for all in all
We ne’er shall see his like again.”

This little Treatise on

COMIC ENGLISH

is, with the most profound Veneration, Admiration, nay, even with
Respect (and the term is used “advisedly”)

humbly dedicated
by
HIS MOST OBLIGED AND MOST
OBEDIENT SERVANT,
THE AUTHOR.

[Pg vii]

It may be considered a strange wish on the part of an Author, to have his preface compared to a donkey’s gallop. We are nevertheless desirous that our own should be considered both short and sweet. For our part, indeed, we would have every preface as short as an orator’s cough, to which, in purpose, it is so nearly like; but Fashion requires, and like the rest of her sex, requires because she requires, that before a writer begins the business of his book, he should give an account to the world of his reasons for producing it; and therefore, to avoid singularity, we shall proceed with the statement of our own, excepting only a few private ones, which are neither here nor there.

[Pg viii]To advance the interests of mankind by promoting the cause of Education; to ameliorate the conversation of the masses; to cultivate Taste, and diffuse Refinement; these are the objects which we have in view in submitting a Comic English Grammar to the patronage of a discerning Public. Nor have we been actuated by philanthropic motives alone, but also by a regard to Patriotism, which, as it has been pronounced on high authority to be the last refuge of a scoundrel, must necessarily be the first concern of an aspiring and disinterested mind. We felt ourselves called upon to do as much, at least, for Modern England as we had before done for Ancient Rome; and having been considered by competent judges to have infused a little liveliness into a dead language, we were bold enough to hope that we might extract some amusement from a living one.

Few persons there are, whose ears are so extremely obtuse, as not to be frequently annoyed at the violations of Grammar by which they are so often assailed. It is really painful to be forced, in walking along the streets, to hear such phrases as, “That ’ere homnibus.” “Where’ve you bin.”[Pg ix] “Vot’s the hodds?” and the like. Very dreadful expressions are also used by draymen and others in addressing their horses. What can possibly induce a human being to say “Gee woot!” “’Mather way!” or “Woa?” not to mention the atrocious “Kim aup!” of the ignorant and degraded costermonger. We once actually heard a fellow threaten to “pitch into” his dog! meaning, we believe, to beat the animal.

It is notorious that the above and greater enormities are perpetrated in spite of the number of Grammars already before the world. This fact sufficiently excuses the present addition to the stock; and as serious English Grammars have hitherto failed to effect the desired reformation, we are induced to attempt it by means of a Comic one.

With regard to the moral tendency of our labours, we may here be permitted to remark, that they will tend, if successful, to the suppression of evil speaking.

We shall only add, that as the Spartans used to exhibit a tipsy slave to their children with a view to disgust them with drunkenness, so we, by giving a few examples here and there, of[Pg x] incorrect phraseology, shall expose, in their naked deformity, the vices of speech to the ingenuous reader.

[Pg xi]

[Pg 1]

Our native country having been, from time immemorial, entitled Merry England, it is clear that, provided it has been called by a right name, a Comic Grammar will afford the most hopeful means of teaching its inhabitants their language.

That the epithet in question has been correctly applied, it will therefore be our business to show.

If we can only prove that things which foreigners regard in the most serious point of view, and which, perhaps, ought in reality to be so considered, afford the modern Minotaur John Bull, merely matter of amusement, we shall go far towards the establishment of our position. We hope to do this and more also.

Births, marriages, and deaths, especially the latter, must be allowed to be matters of some consequence. Every one knows what jokes are[Pg 2] made upon the two first subjects. Those which the remaining one affords, we shall proceed to consider.

Suicide, for instance, is looked upon by Mr. Bull with a very different eye from that with which his neighbours regard it. As to an abortive attempt thereat, it excites in his mind unmitigated ridicule, instead of interest and sympathy. In Paris a foolish fellow, discontented with the world, or, more probably, failing in some attempt to make himself conspicuous, ties a brickbat to his neck, and jumps, at twelve o’clock of the day, into the Seine. He thereby excites great admiration in the minds of the bystanders; but were he to play the same trick on London Bridge, as soon as he had been pulled out of the water he would only be laughed at for his pains.

There was a certain gentleman, an officer in the navy, one Lieutenant Luff; at least we have never heard the fact of his existence disputed; who used to spend all his time in drinking grog; and at last, when he could get no more, thought proper to shoot himself through the chest. In France he would have been buried in Père La Chaise, or some such place, and would have had an ode written to his memory. As his native country, however, was the scene of his exploit,[Pg 3] he was interred, for the affair happened some years ago, in a cross-road; and his fate has been made the subject of a comic song.

That our countrymen regard Death as a jest, no one who considers their bravery in war or their appetite in peace, can possibly doubt. And the expressions, “to hop the twig,” “to kick the bucket,” “to go off the hooks,” “to turn up the toes,” and so on, vernacularly used as synonymous with “to expire,” sufficiently show the jocular light in which the last act of the farce of Life is viewed in Her Majesty’s dominions.

An execution is looked upon abroad as a serious affair; but with us it is quite another matter. Capital punishments, whatever they may be to the sufferers, are to the spectators, if we may judge from their behaviour, little else than capital jokes. The terms which, in common discourse, are used by the humble classes to denote the pensile state, namely, “dancing on nothing,” “having a drop too much,” or “being troubled with a line,” are quite playful, and the “Last Dying Speech” of the criminal is usually a species of composition which might well be called “An Entertaining Narrative illustrated with Humourous Designs.”

The play of George Barnwell, in which a[Pg 4] deluded linendraper’s apprentice commits a horrid murder on the body of a pious uncle, excites, whenever it is represented, as much amusement as if it were a comedy; and there is also a ballad detailing the same circumstances, which, when sung at convivial meetings, is productive of much merriment. Billy Taylor, too, another ballad of the same sort, celebrates, in jocund strains, an act of unjustifiable homicide.

Even the terrors of the other world are converted, in Great Britain, into the drolleries of this. The awful apparitions of the unfortunate Miss Bailey, and the equally unfortunate Mr. Giles Scroggins, have each of them furnished the materials of a comical ditty; and the terrific appearance of the Ghost of a Sheep’s Head to one William White,—a prodigy which would be considered in Germany as fearful in the extreme, has been applied, by some popular but anonymous writer, to the same purpose. The bodily ablation of an unprincipled exciseman by the Prince of Darkness, a circumstance in itself certainly of a serious nature, has been recorded by one of our greatest poets in strains by no means remarkable for gravity. The appellation, “Old Nick,” applied by the vulgar to the Prince in question, is, in every sense of the words, a[Pg 5] nickname; and the aliases by which, like many of his subjects, he is also called and known, such as “Old Scratch,” “Old Harry,” or “The Old Gentleman,” are, to say the very least of them, terms that border on the familiar.

In the popular drama of Punch,[1] we observe a[Pg 6] perfect climax of atrocities and horrors. Victim after victim falls prostrate beneath the cudgel of the deformed and barbarous monster; the very first who feels his tyranny being the wife of his bosom. He, meanwhile, behaves in the most heartless manner, actually singing and capering among the mangled carcases. Benevolence is shocked, Justice is derided, Law is set at nought, and Constables are slain. The fate to which he had been consigned by a Jury of his Country is eluded; and the Avenger of Crime is circumvented by the wily assassin. Lastly, to crown the whole, Retribution herself is mocked; and the very Arch Fiend is dismissed to his own dominions with a fractured skull. And at every stage of these frightful proceedings shouts of uproarious laughter attest the delight of the beholders, increasing in violence with every additional terror, and swelling at the concluding one to an almost inextinguishable peal.

Indeed there is scarcely any shocking thing out of which we can extract no amusement, except the loss of money, wherein, at least when it is our own, we cannot see anything to laugh at.

Some will say that we make it a principle to convert whatever frightens other people into a jest, in order that we may imbibe a contempt[Pg 7] for danger; and that our superiority (universally admitted) over all nations in courage and prowess, is, in fact, owing to the way which we have acquired of laughing all terrors, natural and supernatural, utterly to scorn. With these, however, we do not agree. Our national laughter is, in our opinion, as little based on principle as our national actions have of late years been. We laugh from impulse, or, as we do everything else, because we choose. And we shall find, on examination, that we have contrived, amongst us, to render a great many things exceedingly droll and absurd, without having the slightest reason to assign for so doing.

For example, there is nothing in the office of a Parish Clerk that makes it desirable that he should be a ludicrous person. There is no reason why he should have a cracked voice; an inability to use, or a tendency to omit, the aspirate; a stupid countenance; or a pompous manner. Nor do we clearly see why he should be unable to pronounce proper names; should say Snatchacrab for Sennacherib, or Leftenant for Leviathan. Such, nevertheless, are the peculiarities by which he is commonly distinguished.

We are likewise at a loss to divine why so studiously ridiculous a costume has been made to[Pg 8] enhance the natural absurdity of a Beadle; for we can hardly believe that his singular style of dress was really intended to inspire small children with veneration and awe.

It can scarcely be supposed that a Lord Mayor’s Show was instituted only to be laughed at; yet who would contend that it is of any other use? Nor could the office of the Chief Magistrate of a Corporation, nor that of an Alderman, have been created for the amusement of the Public: there is, however, no purpose which both of them so frequently serve.

If the wig and robes of a Judge were meant to excite the respect of the community in general, and the fear of the unconscientious part of it, we cannot but think that the design has been unsuccessful. That the ministers of justice are not, in fact, so reverently held, by any means, as from the nature of their functions they might be expected to be, is certain. A magistrate, to go no further, is universally known, if not designated, by the jocose appellation of “Beak.”

Butchers, bakers, cobblers, tinkers, costermongers, and tailors; to say nothing of footmen, waiters, dancing-masters, and barbers have become the subjects of ridicule to an extent not warranted by their avocations, simply considered.

[Pg 9]But the comical mind, like the jaundiced eye, views everything through a coloured medium. Such a mind is that of the generality of Britons. We distinguish even the nearest ties of relationship by facetious names. A father is called “Dad,” or “The Governor;” an uncle, “Nunkey;” and a wife, “a rib,” or more pleasantly still, as in the advertisements, an “encumbrance.” Almost every being or thing, indeed, has in English two words to express it, an ordinary and an odd one; and so greatly has the number of expressions of the kind last mentioned increased of late, that, as it appears to us, a new edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, enriched with modern additions, is imperatively called for. When we talk of odd words, we have no fear that our meaning will be misunderstood. It is true that there are some few individuals who complain that they do not see any wit in calling a sheep’s-head a “jemmy,” legs “bandies,” or a hand a “mawley;” and it is also true that there was once a mathematician, who, after reading through Milton’s Paradise Lost, wanted to know what it all proved?

And now that we are speaking of names, we may mention a few which are certainly of a curious nature, and which no foreigner could possibly have invented; unless, which would be likely enough,[Pg 10] he meant to apply them seriously. The names we allude to are names of places—and pretty places they are too; as, “Mount Pleasant,” “Paradise Row,” “Golden Lane.”

Then there are a great many whimsical things that we do:—

When a man cannot pay his debts, and has no prospect of being able to do so except by working, we shut him up in gaol, and humorously describe his condition as that of being in Quod.

We will not allow a man to give an old woman a dose of rhubarb if he have not acquired at least half a dozen sciences; but we permit a quack to sell as much poison as he pleases, with no other diploma than what he gets from the “College of Health.”

When a thief pleads “Guilty” to an indictment, he is advised by the Judge to recall his plea; as if a trial were a matter of sport, and the culprit, like a fox, gave no amusement unless regularly run down. This perhaps is the reason why allowing an animal to start some little time before the pursuit is commenced, is called giving him law.

When one man runs away with another’s wife, and, being on that account challenged to fight a duel, shoots the aggrieved party through the head, the latter is said to receive satisfaction.

[Pg 11]We never take a glass of wine at dinner without getting somebody else to do the same, as if we wanted encouragement; and then, before we venture to drink, we bow to each other across the table, preserving all the while a most wonderful gravity. This, however, it may be said, is the natural result of endeavouring to keep one another in countenance.

The way in which we imitate foreign manners and customs is very amusing. Savages stick fish-bones through their noses; our fair countrywomen have hoops of metal poked through their ears. The Caribs flatten the forehead; the Chinese compress the foot; and we possess similar contrivances for reducing the figure of a young lady to a resemblance to an hour-glass or a devil-on-two-sticks.

There being no other assignable motive for these and the like proceedings, it is reasonable to suppose that they are adopted, as schoolboys say, “for fun.”

We could go on, were it necessary, adducing facts to an almost unlimited extent; but we consider that enough has now been said in proof of the comic character of the national mind. And in conclusion, if any foreign author can be produced, equal in point of wit, humour, and drollery, to[Pg 12] Swift, Sterne, or Butler, we hereby engage to eat him; albeit we have no pretensions to the character of a “helluo librorum.”

[Pg 13]

THE
COMIC ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

“English Grammar,” according to Lindley Murray, “is the art of speaking and writing the English language with propriety.”

The English language, written and spoken with propriety, is commonly called the King’s English.

A monarch, who, three or four generations back, occupied the English throne, is reported to have said, “If beebles will be boets, they must sdarve.” This was a rather curious specimen of “King’s English.” It is, however, a maxim of our law, that “the King can do no wrong.” Whatever bad English, therefore, may proceed from the royal mouth, is not “King’s English,” but “Minister’s English,” for which they alone are responsible. For illustrations of this kind of “English” we beg to refer the reader to the celebrated English Grammar which was written by the late Mr. Cobbett.

King’s English (or, perhaps, under existing circumstances we should say, Queen’s English) is the[Pg 14] current coin of conversation, to mutilate which, and unlawfully to utter the same, is called clipping the King’s English; a high crime and misdemeanour.

Clipped English, or bad English, is one variety of Comic English, of which we shall adduce instances hereafter.

He’s only a little “prodigy” of mine, Doctor.

Slipslop, or the erroneous substitution of one word for another, as “prodigy” for “protégée,”[Pg 15] “derangement” for “arrangement,” “exasperate” for “aspirate,” and the like, is another.

Slang, which consists in cant words and phrases, as “dodge” for “sly trick,” “no go” for “failure,” and “carney” “to flatter,” may be considered a third.

Latinised English, or Fine English, sometimes assumes the character of Comic English, especially when applied to the purposes of common discourse; as “Extinguish the luminary,” “Agitate the communicator,” “Are your corporeal functions in a condition of salubrity?” “A sable visual orb,” “A sanguinary nasal protuberance.”

American English is Comic English in a “pretty particular considerable tarnation” degree.

Among the various kinds of Comic English it would be “tout-à-fait” inexcusable, were we to “manquer” to mention one which has, so to speak, quite “bouleversé’d” the old-fashioned style of conversation; French-English, that is what “nous voulons dire.” “Avec un poco” of the “Italiano,” this forms what is also called the Mosaic dialect.

English Grammar is divided into four parts—Orthography, Etymology, Syntax, and Prosody; and as these are points that a good grammarian always stands upon, he, particularly when a pedant, and consequently somewhat flat, may very properly be compared to a table.

[Pg 16]

OF THE NATURE OF THE LETTERS, AND OF A COMIC ALPHABET.

Orthography is like a junior usher, or instructor of youth. It teaches us the nature and powers of letters and the right method of spelling words.

Note.—In a public school, the person corresponding to an usher is called a master. As it is sometimes his duty to flog, we propose that he should henceforth be called the “Usher of the Birch Rod.”

Comic Orthography teaches us the oddity and absurdities of letters, and the wrong method of spelling words. The following is an example of Comic Orthography:—

[Pg 19]Now, to proceed with Orthography, we may remark, that

A letter is the least part of a word.

Of a comic letter an instance has already been given.

Dr. Johnson’s letter to Lord Chesterfield is a capital letter.

The letters of the Alphabet are the representatives of articulate sounds.

The Alphabet is a Republic of Letters.

There are many things in this world erroneously as well as vulgarly compared to “bricks.” In the case of the letters of the Alphabet, however, the comparison is just; they constitute the fabric of a language, and grammar is the mortar. The wonder is that there should be so few of them. The English letters are twenty-six in number. There is nothing like beginning at the beginning; and we shall now therefore enumerate them, with the view also of rendering their insertion subsidiary to mythological instruction, in conformity with the plan on which some account of the Heathen Deities and ancient heroes is prefixed or subjoined to a Dictionary. We present the reader with a form of Alphabet composed in humble imitation of that famous one, which, while appreciable by the dullest[Pg 20] taste, and level to the meanest capacity, is nevertheless that by which the greatest minds have been agreeably inducted into knowledge.

Letters are divided into Vowels and Consonants.

The vowels are capable of being perfectly uttered by themselves. They are, as it were, independent members of the Alphabet, and like independent members elsewhere form a small minority. The vowels are a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes w and y.

An I. O. U. is a more pleasant thing to have, than it is to give.

A blow in the stomach is very likely to W up.

W is a consonant when it begins a word, as “Wicked Will Wiggins whacked his wife with a whip;” but in every other place it is a vowel, as crawling, drawling, sawney, screwing, Jew. Y follows the same rule.

A consonant is an articulate sound; but, like an old bachelor, if it exist alone it exists to no[Pg 22] purpose. It cannot be perfectly uttered without the aid of a vowel; and even then the vowel has the greatest share in the production of the sound. Thus a vowel joined to a consonant becomes, so to speak, a “better half:” or at all events very strongly resembles one.

Consonants are divided into mutes and semi-vowels.

The mutes cannot be sounded at all without the aid of a vowel. Like young ladies just “come out,” they are silent as long as you let them alone. Some have compared them, on account of their name, to the “Original Good Woman;” but how joining her to anything except to her head again would have cured her of her dumbness, it is not easy to see. B, p, t, d, k, and c and g hard, are the letters called mutes, or, as some have denominated them, black letters.

The semi-vowels, which are f, l, m, n, r, v, s, x, z, and c and g soft, have an imperfect sound of themselves. Well! half a loaf is better than no bread.

L, m, n, r, are further distinguished by the name of liquids. Like certain other liquids they are good for mixing, that is to say, they readily unite with other consonants; and flow, as it were, into their sounds.

[Pg 23]The specific gravity of liquids can only be rendered amusing by comical figures. The gravity, too, of a solid is generally the more ludicrous.

MUTES AND LIQUIDS.

[Pg 24]A diphthong is the union of two vowels in one sound, as ea in heavy, eu in Meux, ou in stout.

A triphthong is a similar union of three vowels, as eau in the word beau; a term applied to dandies, and addressed to geese: probably because they are birds of a feather.

A proper diphthong is that in which the sound is formed by both the vowels: as, aw in awkward, ou in lout.

[Pg 25]An improper diphthong is that in which the sound is formed by one of the vowels only, as ea in heartless, oa in hoax.

According to our notions there are a great many improper diphthongs in common use. By improper diphthongs we mean vowels unwarrantably dilated into diphthongs, and diphthongs mispronounced, in defiance of good English, and against our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

For instance, the rustics say,—

“Loor! whaut a foine gaal! Moy oy!”

“Whaut a precious soight of crows!”

“As I was a comin’ whoam through the corn fiddles (fields) I met Willum Jones.”

After this manner cockneys express themselves:—

“I sor (saw) him.”

“Dror (draw) it out.”

“Hold your jor (jaw).”

“I caun’t. You shaun’t. How’s your Maw and Paw? Do you like taut (tart)?”

We have heard young ladies remark,—

“Oh, my! What a naice young man!”

“What a bee—eautiful day!”

“I’m so fond of dayncing!”

Dandies frequently exclaim,—

[Pg 26]“I’m postively tiawed (tired).”

“What a sweet tempaw! (temper).”

“How daughty (dirty) the streets au!”

And they also call,—

Literature, “literetchah.”

Perfectly, “pawfacly.”

Disgusted, “disgasted.”

Sky (theatrical dandies do this chiefly) “ske-eye.”

Blue, “ble—ew.”

We might here insert a few remarks on the nature of the human voice, and of the mechanism by means of which articulation is performed; but besides our dislike to prolixity, we are afraid of getting down in the mouth, and thereby going the wrong way to please our readers. We may nevertheless venture to invite attention to a few comical peculiarities in connection with articulate sounds.

Ahem! at the commencement of a speech, is a sound agreeably droll.

The vocal comicalities of the infant in arms are exceedingly laughable, but we are unfortunately unable to spell them.

The articulation of the Jew is peculiarly ridiculous. The “peoplesh” are badly spoken of, and not well spoken.

[Pg 27]Bawling, croaking, hissing, whistling, and grunting, are elegant vocal accomplishments.

Lisping, as, “thweet, Dthooliur, thawming, kweechau,” is by some considered interesting, by others absurd.

Stammering is sometimes productive of amusement.

Humming and hawing are ludicrous embellishments to a discourse. Crowing like a cock, braying like a donkey, quacking like a duck, and hooting like an owl, are modes of exerting the voice which are usually regarded as diverting.

But of all the sounds which proceed from the human mouth, by far the funniest are Ha! ha! ha!—Ho! ho! ho! and He! he! he!

[Pg 28]

OF SYLLABLES.

Syllable is a nice word, it sounds so much like syllabub!

A syllable, whether it constitute a word or part of a word, is a sound, either simple or compound, produced by one effort of the voice, as, “O!, what, a, lark!—Here, we, are!”

[Pg 29]Spelling is the art of putting together the letters which compose a syllable, or the syllables which compose a word.

Comic spelling is usually the work of imagination. The chief rule to be observed in this kind of spelling, is, to spell every word as it is pronounced; though the rule is not universally observed by comic spellers. The following example, for the genuineness of which we can vouch, is one so singularly apposite, that although we have already submitted a similar specimen of orthography to the reader, we are irresistibly tempted to make a second experiment on his indulgence. The epistolary curiosity, then, which we shall now proceed to transcribe, was addressed by a patient to his medical adviser.

Chelsea College has been supposed by foreigners to be an institution for the teaching of orthography; probably in consequence of a passage in the well known song in “The Waterman,”

“Never more at Chelsea Ferry,
Shall your Thomas take a spell.”

Q. Why is a dunce no conjuror?

A. Because he cannot spell.

Among the various kinds of spelling may be enumerated spelling for a favour; or giving what is called a broad hint.

Certain rules for the division of words into syllables are laid down in some grammars, and we should be very glad to follow the established usage, but, limited as we are by considerations of comicality and space, we cannot afford to give more than two very general directions. If you[Pg 31] do not know how to spell a word, look it out in the dictionary, and if you have no dictionary by you, write the word in such a way, that, while it may be guessed at, it shall not be legible.

[Pg 32]

OF WORDS IN GENERAL.

There is no one question that we are aware of more puzzling than this, “What is your opinion of things in general?” Words in general are, fortunately for us, a subject on which the formation of an opinion is somewhat more easy. Words stand for things: they are a sort of counters, checks, bank-notes, and sometimes, indeed, they are notes for which people get a great deal of money. Such words, however, are, alas! not English words, or words sterling. Strange! that so much should be given for a mere song. It is quite clear that the givers, whatever may be their pretensions to a refined or literary taste, must be entirely unacquainted with Wordsworth.

Fine words are oily enough, and he who uses them is vulgarly said to “cut it fat;” but for all that it is well known that they will not butter parsnips.

Some say that words are but wind: for this reason, when people are having words, it is often said, that “the wind’s up.”

[Pg 33]Different words please different people. Philosophers are fond of hard words; pedants of tough words, long words, and crackjaw words; bullies, of rough words; boasters, of big words; the rising generation, of slang words; fashionable people, of French words; wits, of sharp words and smart words; and ladies, of nice words, sweet words, soft words, and soothing words; and, indeed, of words in general.

Words (when spoken) are articulate sounds used by common consent as signs of our ideas.

A word of one syllable is called a Monosyllable: as, you, are, a, great, oaf.

A word of two syllables is named a Dissyllable; as, cat-gut, mu-sic.

A word of three syllables is termed a Trisyllable; as, Mag-net-ism, Mum-mer-y.

A word of four or more syllables is entitled a Polysyllable; as, in-ter-mi-na-ble, cir-cum-lo-cu-ti-on, ex-as-pe-ra-ted, func-ti-o-na-ry, met-ro-po-li-tan, ro-tun-di-ty.

Words of more syllables than one are sometimes comically contracted into one syllable; as, in s’pose for suppose, b’lieve for believe, and ’scuse for excuse: here, perhaps, ’buss, abbreviated from omnibus, deserves to be mentioned.

In like manner, many long words are elegantly trimmed and shortened; as, ornary for ordinary,[Pg 34] ’strornary for extraordinary, and curosity for curiosity; to which mysterus for mysterious may also be added.

Polysyllables are an essential element in the sublime, both in poetry and in prose; but especially in that species of the sublime which borders very closely on the ridiculous; as,

“Aldiborontiphoscophormio,
Where left’st thou Chrononhotonthologos?”

[Pg 35]All words are either primitive or derivative. A primitive word is that which cannot be reduced to any simpler word in the language; as, brass, York, knave. A derivative word, under the head of which compound words are also included, is that which may be reduced to another and a more simple word in the English language; as, brazen, Yorkshire, knavery, mud-lark, lighterman.

Broadbrim is a derivative word; but it is one often applied to a very primitive kind of person.

[Pg 36]

A COMICAL VIEW OF THE PARTS OF SPEECH.

Etymology teaches the varieties, modifications, and derivation of words.

The derivation of words means that which they come from as words; for what they come from as sounds, is another matter. Some words come from the heart, and then they are pathetic; others from the nose, in which case they are ludicrous. The funniest place, however, from which words can come, is the stomach. By the way, the Lord Mayor would do well to keep a ventriloquist, from whom, at a moment’s notice, he might ascertain the voice of the corporation.

Comic Etymology teaches us the varieties, modifications, and derivation, of words invested with a comic character.

Grammatically speaking, we say that there are, in English, as many sorts of words as a cat is said[Pg 37] to have lives, nine; namely, the Article, the Substantive or Noun, the Adjective, the Pronoun, the Verb, the Adverb, the Preposition, the Conjunction, and the Interjection.

Comically speaking, there are a great many sorts of words which we have not room enough to particularise individually. We can therefore only afford to classify them. For instance; there are words which are spoken in the Low Countries, and are High Dutch to persons of quality; as in Billingsgate, Whitechapel, and St. Giles’s.

Words in use amongst all those who have to do with horses.

Words that pass between rival cab-men.

Words peculiar to the P. R. where the order of the day is generally a word and a blow.

Words spoken in a state of intoxication.

Words uttered under excitement.

Words of endearment, addressed to children in arms.

Similar words, sometimes called burning, tender, soft, and broken words, addressed to young ladies, and whispered, lisped, sighed, or drawled, according to circumstances.

Words of honour; as, tailors’ words and shoemakers’ words; which, like the above-mentioned, or lovers’ words, are very often broken.

[Pg 38]With many other sorts of words, which will be readily suggested by the reader’s fancy.

But now let us go on with the parts of speech.

1. An Article is a word prefixed to substantives to point them out, and to show the extent of their meaning; as, a dandy, an ape, the simpleton.

One kind of comic article is otherwise denominated an oddity, or queer article.

Another kind of comic article is often to be met with in Bentley’s Miscellany.

2. A Substantive or Noun is the name of anything that exists, or of which we have any notion; as, tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, apothecary, ploughboy, thief.

Now the above definition of a substantive is Lindley Murray’s, not ours. We mention this, because we have an objection, though, not, perhaps, a serious one, to urge against it; for, in the first place, we have “no notion” of impudence, and yet impudence is a substantive; and, in the second, we invite attention to the following piece of Logic,

A substantive is something,
But nothing is a substantive;
Therefore, nothing is something.

A substantive may generally be known by its taking an article before it, and by its making sense of itself: as, a treat, the mulligrubs, an ache.

3. An Adjective is a word joined to a substantive[Pg 39] to denote its quality; as a ragged regiment, an odd set.

You may distinguish an adjective by its making sense with the word thing: as, a poor thing, a sweet thing, a cool thing; or with any particular substantive, as a ticklish position, an awkward mistake, a strange step.

4. A Pronoun is a word used in lieu of a noun, in order to avoid tautology: as, “The man wants calves; he is a lath; he is a walking-stick.”

5. A Verb is a word which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer: as, I am; I calculate; I am fixed.

A verb may usually be distinguished by its making sense with a personal pronoun, or with the word to before it: as I yell, he grins, they caper; or to drink, to smoke, to chew.

Fashionable accomplishments!

Certain substantives are, with peculiar elegance, and by persons who call themselves genteel, converted into verbs: as, “Do you wine?” “Will you malt?” “Let me persuade you to cheese?”

6. An Adverb is a part of speech which, joined to a verb, an adjective, or another adverb, serves to express some quality or circumstance concerning it: as, “She swears dreadfully; she is incorrigibly lazy; and she is almost continually in liquor.”

7. An adverb is generally characterised by answering to the question, How? how much? when?[Pg 40] or where? as in the verse, “Merrily danced the Quaker’s wife,” the answer to the question, How did she dance? is, merrily.

8. Prepositions serve to connect words together, and to show the relation between them: as,

“Off with his head, so much for Buckingham!”

9. A Conjunction is used to connect not only words, but sentences also: as, Smith and Jones are happy because they are single. A miss is as good as a mile.

SINGLE BLESSEDNESS.

[Pg 41]10. An Interjection is a short word denoting passion or emotion: as, “Oh, Sophonisba! Sophonisba, oh!” Pshaw! Pish! Pooh! Bah! Ah! Au! Eughph! Yah! Hum! Ha! Lauk! La! Lor! Heigho! Well! There! &c.

Among the foregoing interjections there may, perhaps, be some unhonoured by the adoption of genius, and unknown in the domains of literature. For the present notice of them some apology may be required, but little will be given; their insertion may excite astonishment, but their omission would have provoked complaint: though unprovided with a Johnsonian title to a place in the English vocabulary, they have long been recognised by the popular voice; and let it be remembered, that as custom supplies the defects of legislation, so that which is not sanctioned by magisterial authority may nevertheless be justified by vernacular usage.

[Pg 42]

OF THE ARTICLES.

The Articles in English are two, a and the; a becomes an before a vowel, and before an h which is not sounded: as, an exquisite, an hour-glass. But if the h be pronounced, the a only is used: as, a homicide, a homœopathist, a hum.

This rule is reversed in what is termed the Cockney dialect: as, a inspector, a officer, a object, a omnibus, a individual, a alderman, a honour, an horse, or rather, a norse, an hound, an hunter, &c.

It is usual in the same dialect, when the article an should, in strict propriety, precede a word, to omit the letter n, and further, for the sake of euphony and elegance, to place the aspirate h before the word; as, a hegg, a haccident, a hadverb, a hox. But sometimes, when a word begins with an h, and has the article a before it, the aspirate is omitted, the letter a remaining unchanged: as, a ’ogg, a ’edge, a ’emisphere, a ’ouse.

[Pg 43]The slight liberties which it is the privilege of the people to take with the article and aspirate become always most evident in the expression of excited feeling, when the stress which is laid upon certain words is heightened by the peculiarity of the pronunciation: as, “You hignorant hupstart! you hilliterate ’og! ’ow dare you to hoffer such a hinsult to my hunderstanding?—You are a hobject of contempt, you hare, and a hinsolent wagobond! your mother was nothing but a happle-woman, and your father was an ’uckster!”

Note.—In the above example, the ordinary rules of language relative to the article and aspirate (to say nothing of the maxims of politeness) are completely set at nought; but it must be remembered, that in common discourse the modification of the article, and the omission or use of the aspirate, are determined by the Cockneys according to the ease with which particular words are pronounced; as, “Though himpudent, he warn’t as impudent as Bill wur.” Here the word impudent, following a vowel-sound, is most easily pronounced as himpudent, while the same word, coming after a consonant, even in the same sentence, is uttered with greater facility in the usual way.

A or an is called the indefinite article, because it is used, in a vague sense, to point out some one[Pg 44] thing belonging to a certain kind, but in other respects indeterminate; as,

“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!”

So say grammarians. Eating-house keepers tell a different story. A cheese, in common discourse, means an object of a certain shape, size, weight, and so on, entire and perfect; so that to call half a cheese a cheese, would constitute a flaw in an indictment against a thief who had stolen one. But a waiter will term a fraction, or a modicum of cheese, a cheese; a plate-full of pudding, a pudding; and a stick of celery, a celery, or rather, a salary. Nay, he will even apply the article a to a word which does not stand for an individual object at all; as a bread, a butter, a bacon. Here we are reminded of the famous exclamation of one of these gentry:—“Master! master! there’s two teas and a brandy-and-water just hopped over the palings!”

The is termed the definite article, inasmuch as it denotes what particular thing or things are meant; as,

“The miller he stole corn,
The weaver he stole yarn,
And the little tailòr he stole broad-cloth
To keep the three rogues warm.”

[Pg 45]A substantive to which no article is prefixed is taken in a general sense; as, “Apple sauce is proper for goose;” that is, for all geese.

APPLE-SAUCE.

A few additional remarks may advantageously be made with respect to the articles. The mere substitution of the definite for the indefinite article is capable of changing entirely the meaning of a[Pg 46] sentence. “That is a ticket” is the assertion of a certain fact; but “That is the ticket!” means something which is quite different.

The article is not prefixed to a proper name; as, Stubbs, Wiggins, Chubb, or Hobson, except for the sake of distinguishing a particular family, or description of persons; as, He is a Burke; that is, one of the Burkes, or a person resembling Burke. The article is sometimes also prefixed to a proper name, to point out some distinguished individual; as, The Burke, or the great politician, or the resurrectionist, Burke.

Who is the Smith?

The indefinite article is joined to substantives in the singular number only. We have heard people say, however, “He keeps a wine-vaults;” or, to quote more correctly—waltz. The definite article may be joined to plurals also.

The definite article is frequently used with adverbs in the comparative and superlative degree: as, “The longer I live, the broader I grow;” or, as we have all heard the showman say, “This here, gentlemen and ladies, is the vonderful heagle of the sun; the ’otterer it grows, the higherer he flies!”

[Pg 47]

SECTION I.

OF SUBSTANTIVES IN GENERAL.

Substantives are either proper or common.

Proper names, or substantives, are the names belonging to individuals: as William, Birmingham.

These are sometimes converted into nicknames, or improper names: as Bill, Brummagem.

Common names, or substantives, denote kinds containing many sorts, or sorts containing many individuals under them: as brute, beast, bumpkin, cherub, infant, goblin, &c.

Proper names, when an article is prefixed to them, are employed as common names: as, “They thought him a perfect Chesterfield; he quite astonished the Browns.”

Common names, on the other hand, are made to denote individuals, by the addition of articles or pronouns: as,

“There was a little man, and he had a little gun.”

“That boy will be the death of me!”

[Pg 48]Substantives are considered according to gender, number, and case; they are all of the third person when spoken of, and of the second when spoken to: as,

Matilda, fairest maid, who art
In countless bumpers toasted,
O let thy pity baste the heart
Thy fatal charms have roasted!

 [Pg 49]

SECTION II.

OF GENDER.

The distinction between nouns with regard to sex is called Gender. There are three genders; the Masculine, the Feminine, and the Neuter.

The masculine gender belongs to animals of the male kind: as, a fop, a jackass, a boar, a poet, a lion.

The feminine gender is peculiar to animals of the female kind: as, a poetess, a lioness, a goose.

The neuter gender is that of objects which are neither males nor females: as, a toast, a tankard, a pot, a pipe, a pudding, a pie, a sausage, a roll, a muffin, a crumpet, a puff, a cheesecake, a bun, an apricot, an orange, a lollipop, a cream, an ice, a jelly, &c. &c. &c.

We might go on to enumerate an infinity of objects of the neuter gender, of all sorts and kinds; but in the selection of the foregoing examples we have been guided by two considerations:—

1. The desire of exciting agreeable emotions in the mind of the reader.

2. The wish to illustrate the following proposition, “That almost everything nice is also neuter.”

Except, however, a nice young lady, a nice duck,[Pg 50] and one or two other nice things, which we do not at present remember.

Some neuter substantives are by a figure of speech converted into the masculine or feminine gender: thus we say of the sun, that when he shines upon a Socialist, he shines upon a thief; and of the moon, that she affects the minds of lovers.

A SOCIALIST.

There are certain nouns with which notions of strength, vigour, and the like qualities, are more particularly connected; and these are the neuter substantives which are figuratively rendered masculine. On the other hand, beauty, amiability, and[Pg 51] so forth, are held to invest words with a feminine character. Thus the sun is said to be masculine, and the moon feminine. But for our own part, and our view is confirmed by the discoveries of astronomy, we believe that the sun is called masculine from his supporting and sustaining the moon, and finding her the wherewithal to shine away as she does of a night, when all quiet people are in bed; and from his being obliged to keep such a family of stars besides. The moon, we think, is accounted feminine, because she is thus maintained and kept up in her splendour, like a fine lady, by her husband the sun. Furthermore, the moon is continually changing; on which account alone she might be referred to the feminine gender. The earth is feminine, tricked out, as she is, with gems and flowers. Cities and towns are likewise feminine, because there are as many windings, turnings, and little odd corners in them as there are in the female mind. A ship is feminine, inasmuch as she is blown about by every wind. Virtue is feminine by courtesy. Fortune and misfortune, like mother and daughter, are both feminine. The Church is feminine, because she is married to the state; or married to the state because she is feminine—we do not know which. Time is masculine, because he is so trifled with by the ladies.

 [Pg 52]

“Shan’t I shine to-night, dear?”

The English language distinguishes the sex in three manners; namely,

1. By different words; as,

And several other

Words we don’t mention,
(Pray pardon the crime,)
Worth your attention,
But wanting in rhyme.

2. By a difference of termination; as,

3. By a noun, pronoun, or adjective being prefixed to the substantive; as,

[Pg 54]

We have heard it said, that every Jack has his Jill. That may be; but it is by no means true that every cock has his hen; for there is a

Cock-swain, but no Hen-swain.
Cock-eye, but no Hen-eye.
Cock-ade, but no Hen-ade.
Cock-atrice, but no Hen-atrice.
Cock-horse, but no Hen-horse.
Cock-ney, but no Hen-ney.

Then we have a weather-cock, but no weather-hen; a turn-cock, but no turn-hen; and many a jolly cock, but not one jolly hen; unless we except some of those by whom their mates are pecked.

Some words; as, parent, child, cousin, friend, neighbour, servant, and several others, are either male or female, according to circumstances. The word blue (used as a substantive) is one of this class.

It is a great pity that our language is so poor in the terminations that denote gender. Were we to[Pg 55] say of a woman, that she is a rogue, a knave, a scamp, or a vagabond, we feel that we should use, not only strong but improper expressions. Yet we have no corresponding terms to apply, in case of necessity, to the female. Why is this? Doubtless because we never want them. For the same reason, our forefathers transmitted to us the words, philosopher, astronomer, philologer, and so forth, without any feminine equivalent. Alas! for the wisdom of our ancestors! They never calculated on the March of Intellect.

We understand that it is in contemplation to coin a new word, memberess; it being confidently expected that by the time the new Houses of Parliament are finished, the progress of civilisation will have furnished us with female representatives.

In that case the House will be an assembly of Speakers.

But if all the old women are to be turned out of St. Stephen’s, and their places to be filled with young ones, the nation will hardly be a loser by the change.

SECTION III.

OF NUMBER.

Number is the consideration of an object as one or more; as, one poet, two, three, four, five poets; and so on, ad infinitum.

[Pg 56]Other countries may reckon up as many poets as they please; England has one more.

The singular number expresses one object only; as, a towel, a viper.

The plural signifies more objects than one; as, towels, vipers.

Some nouns are used only in the singular number; dirt, pitch, tallow, grease, filth, butter, asparagus, &c.; others only in the plural; as, galligaskins, breeches, &c.

Some words are the same in both numbers; as, sheep, swine, and some others.

“A doctor, both to sheep and swine,”
Said Mrs. Glass, “I am;
For legs of mutton I can dress,
And shine in curing ham.”

The plural number of nouns is usually formed by adding s to the singular; as, dove, doves, love, loves, &c.

Julia, dove returns to dove,
Quid pro quo, and love for love;
Happy in our mutual loves,
Let us live like turtle doves!

 [Pg 57]

When, however, the substantive singular ends in x, ch soft, sh, ss, or s, we add es in the plural.

But remember, though box
In the plural makes boxes,
That the plural of ox
Should be oxen, not oxes.

[Pg 58]A few Singular Plurals, or Plurals popularly varied, are as follow:—

Note.—The singular is often used, by a kind of licence conceded to persons of refinement, for the plural; as, “May I trouble you for a bean?” “Will you assist Miss Spriggins to a pea?” So also people say, “A few green.” “Two or three radish,” &c.

SECTION IV.

OF CASE.

There is nearly as much difference between Latin and English substantives, with respect to the number of cases pertaining to each, as there is between a quack-doctor and a physician; for while in Latin substantives have six cases, in English they have but three. But the analogy should not[Pg 59] be strained too far; for the fools in the world (who furnish the quack with his cases) more than double the number of the wise.

A VERY BAD CASE.

The cases of substantives are these: the Nominative, the Possessive or Genitive, and the Objective or Accusative.

The Nominative Case merely expresses the name of a thing, or the subject of the verb: as, “The doctors differ;”—“The patient dies!”

[Pg 60]Possession, which is nine points of the law, is what is signified by the Possessive Case. This case is distinguished by an apostrophe, with the letter s subjoined to it: as, “My soul’s idol!”—“A pudding’s end.”

But when the plural ends in s, the apostrophe only is retained, and the other s is omitted: as, “The Ministers’ Step;”—“The Rogues’ March;”—“Crocodiles’ tears;”—“Butchers’ mourning.”

When the singular terminates in ss, the letter s is sometimes, in like manner, dispensed with: as, “For goodness’ sake!”—“For righteousness’ sake!” Nevertheless, we have no objection to “Guinness’s” Stout.

The Objective Case follows a verb active, and expresses the object of an action, or of a relation: as, “Spring beat Bill;” that is, Bill or “William Neate.” Hence, perhaps, the American phrase, “I’ll lick you elegant.”

By the by, it seems to us, that when the Americans revolted from the authority of England, they determined also to revolutionise their language.

The Objective Case is also used with a preposition: as, “You are in a mess.”

English substantives may be declined in the following manner:—

[Pg 61]

[Pg 62]

OF ADJECTIVES.

SECTION I.

OF THE NATURE OF ADJECTIVES AND THE DEGREES OF COMPARISON.

An English Adjective, whatever may be its gender, number, or case, like a rusty weathercock, never varies. Thus we say, “A certain cabinet; certain rogues.”

But as a rusty weathercock may vary in being more or less rusty, so an adjective varies in the degrees of comparison.

The degrees of comparison, like the genders, the Graces, the Fates, the Kings of Cologne, the Weird Sisters, the Jolly Postboys, and many other things, are three; the Positive, the Comparative, and the Superlative.

The Positive state simply expresses the quality of an object; as, fat, ugly, foolish.

[Pg 63]The Comparative degree increases or lessens the signification of the positive; as, fatter, uglier, more foolish, less foolish.

The Superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or lowest degree; as, fattest, ugliest, most foolish, least foolish.

Amongst the ancients, Ulysses was the fattest, because nobody could compass him.

Aristides the Just was the ugliest, because he was so very plain.

The most foolish, undoubtedly, was Homer; for who was more natural than he?

The positive becomes the comparative by the addition of r or er; and the superlative by the addition of st or est to the end of it; as, brown, browner, brownest; stout, stouter, stoutest; heavy, heavier, heaviest; wet, wetter, wettest. The adverbs more and most, prefixed to the adjective, also form the superlative degree; as, heavy, more heavy, most heavy.

Most heavy is the drink of draymen: hence, perhaps, the weight of those important personages. More of this, however, in our forthcoming work on Phrenology.

Monosyllables are usually compared by er and est, and dissyllables by more and most; except dissyllables ending in y or in le before a mute, or those[Pg 64] which are accented on the last syllable; for these, like monosyllables, easily admit of er and est. But these terminations are scarcely ever used in comparing words of more than two syllables.

We have some words, which, from custom, are irregular in respect of comparison; as, good, better, best; bad, worse, worst, &c. Much amusement may be derived from the comparisons of adjectives, as made by natural grammarians; a class of beings who generally inhabit the kitchen or stable, but may sometimes be met with in more elevated regions. A few examples will not be out of place. We are not speaking of servants, but of degrees of comparison; as,

With many others.

[Pg 65]Here also may be adduced the Yankee’s “notion” of comparison; “My uncle’s a tarnation rogue; but I’m a tarnationer.”

SECTION II.

A FEW REMARKS ON THE SUBJECT OF COMPARISON.

Comparisons appear to have been strongly disapproved of by Dr. Johnson. “Sir,” said he, “the Whigs make comparisons.” It must be confessed that the Doctor’s meaning is not quite so evident here as it is in general; but that may be the fault of his biographer. Perhaps some of the Whigs had been making comparisons at his expense, or impertinent comparisons, which his temper, being positive, may have tempted them to indulge in. Or they may have been out in making their comparisons, which, in that case, must of course have been bad. But a truce to speculations of this kind, on the saying of one, another of whose dogmas was, that “the man who could make a pun would also pick a pocket.” We only hope, that such comparisons as we may make, will no more vex his spirit now than they would once have aroused his bile.

Lindley Murray judiciously observes, that “if we consider the subject of comparison attentively,[Pg 66] we shall perceive that the degrees of it are infinite in number, or at least indefinite:” and he proceeds to say, “A mountain is larger than a mite; by how many degrees? How much bigger is the earth than a grain of sand? By how many degrees was Socrates wiser than Alcibiades? or by how many is snow whiter than this paper? It is plain,” quoth Lindley, “that to these and the like questions no definite answers can be returned.”

No; but an impertinent one may. Ask the first charity-boy you meet any one of them, and see if he does not immediately respond, “Ax my eye;” or, “As much again as half.”

But when quantity can be exactly measured, the degrees of excess may be exactly ascertained. A foot is just twelve times as long as an inch; a tailor is nine times less than a man.

Moreover, to compensate for the indefiniteness of the degrees of comparison, we use certain adverbs and words of like import, whereby we render our meaning tolerably intelligible; as, “Byron was a much greater poet than Muggins.” “Honey is a great deal sweeter than wax.” “Sugar is considerably more pleasant than the cane.” “Maria says, that Dick the butcher is by far the most killing young man she knows.”

The words very, exceedingly, and the like, placed[Pg 67] before the positive, give it the force of the superlative; and this is called by some the superlative of eminence, as distinguished from the superlative of comparison. Thus, Very Reverend is termed the superlative of eminence, although it is the title of a dean, not of a cardinal; and Most Reverend, the appellation of an Archbishop, is called the superlative of comparison.

A Bishop, in our opinion, is Most Excellent.

The comparative is sometimes so employed as to express the same pre-eminence or inferiority as the superlative. For instance; the sentence, “Of all the cultivators of science, the botanist is the most crafty,” has the same meaning as the following “The botanist is more crafty than any other cultivator of science.”

Why? some of our readers will ask—

Because he is acquainted with all sorts of plants.

[Pg 68]

OF PRONOUNS.

Pronouns or proxy-nouns are of three kinds; namely, the Personal, the Relative, and the Adjective Pronouns.

Note.—That when we said, some few pages back, that a pronoun was a word used instead of a noun, we did not mean to call such words as thingumibob, whatsiname, what-d’ye-call-it, and the like, pronouns.

And that, although we shall proceed to treat of the pronouns in the English language, we shall have nothing to do, at present, with what some people please to call pronoun-ciation.

SECTION I.

OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

“Mr. Haddams, don’t be personal, Sir!”

“I’m not, Sir.”

“You har, Sir!”

“What did I say, Sir?—tell me that.”

[Pg 69]“You reflected on my perfession, Sir; you said, as there was some people as always stuck up for the cloth; and you insinnivated that certain parties dined off goose by means of cabbaging from the parish. I ask any gentleman in the westry, if that an’t personal?”

A SELECT VESTRY.

[Pg 70]“Vell, Sir, vot I says I’ll stick to.”

“Yes, Sir, like vax, as the saying is.”

“Wot d’ye mean by that, Sir?”

“Wot I say, Sir!”

“You’re a individual, Sir!”

“You’re another, Sir!”

“You’re no gentleman, Sir!”

“You’re a humbug, Sir!”

“You’re a knave, Sir!”

“You’re a rogue, Sir!”

“You’re a wagabond, Sir!”

“You’re a willain, Sir!”

“You’re a tailor, Sir!”

“You’re a cobbler, Sir!” (Order! order! chair! chair! &c.)

The above is what is called personal language. How many different things one word serves to express in English! A pronoun may be as personal as possible, and yet nobody will take offence at it.

There are five Personal Pronouns; namely, I, thou, he, she, it; with their plurals, we, ye or you, they.

Personal Pronouns admit of person, number, gender, and case.

Pronouns have three persons in each number.

[Pg 71]In the Singular;

In the plural;

This account of persons will be very intelligible when the following Pastoral Fragment is reflected on:—

The speaker or speakers are of the first person; those spoken to, of the second; and those spoken of, of the third.

[Pg 72]Of the three persons, the first is the most universally admired.

The second is the object of much adulation and flattery, and now and then of a little abuse.

The third person is generally made small account of; and, amongst other grievances, suffers a great deal from being frequently bitten about the back.

The Numbers of pronouns, like those of substantives, are, as we have already seen, two; the singular and the plural.

In addressing yourself to anybody, it is customary to use the second person plural instead of the singular. This practice most probably arose from a notion, that to be thought twice the man that the speaker was, gratified the vanity of the person addressed. Thus, the French put a double Monsieur on the backs of their letters.

Editors say “We,” instead of “I,” out of modesty.

The Quakers continue to say “thee” and “thou,” in the use of which pronouns, as well as in the wearing of broad-brimmed hats and of stand-up collars, they perceive a peculiar sanctity.

Gender has to do only with the third person singular of the pronouns, he, she, it. He is masculine; she is feminine; it is neuter.

[Pg 73]Pronouns have the like cases with substantives; the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

Would that they were the hardest cases to be met with in this country!

The personal pronouns are thus declined:—

Pronouns, you see, are declined without fuss.

How glad I shall be when my task I’ve got through!

Now the third person singular, as we before observed, has genders; and we shall therefore decline it in a different way. Variety is charming.

THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.

Reader, Mem.

We beg to inform thee, that the third person plural has no distinction of gender.

SECTION II.

OF THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.

The Pronouns called Relative are such as relate, for the most part, to some word or phrase, called the antecedent, on account of its going before: they are, who, which, and that: as, “The man who does not drink enough when he can get it, is a fool; but he that drinks too much is a beast.”

What is usually equivalent to that which, and is, therefore, a kind of compound relative, containing both the antecedent and the relative; as, “You want what you’ll very soon have!” that is to say, the thing which you will very soon have.

[Pg 75]Who is applied to persons, which to animals and things without life; as, “He is a gentleman who keeps a horse and lives respectably.” “To the dog which pinned the old woman, they cried, ‘Cæsar!’” “This is the tree which Larkins called a helm.”

Larkins.—I say, Nibbs, ven is a helm box like a asthmatical chest?

Nibbs.—Ven it’s a coffin.

That, as a relative, is used to prevent the too frequent repetition of who and which, and is applied both to persons and things; as, “He that stops the bottle is a Cork man.” “This is the house that Jack built.”

Who is of both numbers; and so is an Editor; for, according to what we observed just now, he is both singular and plural. Who, we repeat, is of both numbers, and is thus declined:—

SINGULAR AND PLURAL.

Which, that, and what are indeclinable; except[Pg 76] that whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as,

“The roe, poor dear, laments amain,
Whose sweet hart was by hunter slain.”

Thus whose is substituted for of which, in the following example:—

“There is a blacking famed, of which
The sale made Day and Martin rich;
There is another blacking, whose
Compounder patronised the Muse.”[2]

Who, which, and what, when they are used in asking questions, are called Interrogatives; as, “Who is Mr. Walker?” “Which is the left side of a round plum-pudding?” “What is the damage?”

Those who have made popular phraseology their study, will have found that which is sometimes used for whereas, and words of like signification; as in Dean Swift’s “Mary the Cookmaid’s Letter to Dr. Sheridan”:—

“And now I know whereby you would fain make an excuse,
[Pg 77]Because my master one day in anger call’d you a goose;
Which, and I am sure I have been his servant since October,
And he never called me worse than sweetheart, drunk or sober.”

What, or, to speak more improperly, wot, is generally substituted by cabmen and costermongers for who; as, “The donkey wot wouldn’t go.” “The man wot sweeps the crossing.”

That, likewise, is very frequently rejected by the vulgar, who use as in its place; as, “Them as asks shan’t have any; and them as don’t ask don’t want any.”

SECTION III.

OF THE ADJECTIVE PRONOUNS.

Adjective pronouns partake of the nature of both pronouns and adjectives. They may be subdivided into four sorts: the possessive, the distributive, the demonstrative, and the indefinite.

The possessive pronouns are those which imply possession or property. Of these there are seven; namely, my, thy, his, her, our, your, their.

The word self is added to possessives; as, myself, yourself, “Says I to myself, says I.” Self is[Pg 78] also sometimes used with personal pronouns; as, himself, itself, themselves. His self is a common, but not a proper expression.

SELF-ESTEEM.

The distributive are three: each, every, either; they denote the individual persons or things separately, which, when taken together, make up a number.

Each is used when two or more persons or[Pg 79] things are mentioned singly; as, “each of the Catos;” “each of the Browns.”

Every relates to one out of several; as, “Every mare is a horse, but every horse is not a mare.”

Either refers to one out of two; as,

“When I between two jockeys ride,
I have a knave on either side.”

Neither signifies “not either;” as “Neither of the Bacons was related to Hogg.”

The demonstrative pronouns precisely point out the subjects to which they relate; such are this and that, with their plurals these and those; as, “This is a foreign Prince; that is an English Peer.”

This refers to the nearest person or thing, and to the latter or last mentioned; that to the most distant, and to the former or first mentioned; as, “This is a man; that is a nondescript.” “At the period of the Reformation in Scotland, a curious contrast between the ancient and modern ecclesiastical systems was observed; for while that had been always maintained by a Bull, this was now supported by a Knox.”

The indefinite are those which express their subjects in an indefinite or general manner; as, some, other, any, one, all, such, &c.

[Pg 80]When the definite article the comes before the word other, those who do not know better, are accustomed to strike out the he in the, and to say, t’other.

The same persons also use other in the comparative degree; for sometimes, instead of saying quite the reverse, or perhaps rewerse, they avail themselves of the expression, more t’other.

So much for the Pronouns.

[Pg 81]

OF VERBS.

SECTION I.

OF THE NATURE OF VERBS IN GENERAL.

The nature of Verbs in general, and that in all languages, is, that they are the most difficult things in the Grammar.

Verbs are divided into Active, Passive, and Neuter; and also into Regular, Irregular, and Defective. To these divisions we beg to add another; Verbs Comic.

A Verb Active implies an agent, and an object acted upon; as, to love; “I love Wilhelmina Stubbs.” Here, I am the agent; that is, the lover; and Wilhelmina Stubbs is the object acted upon, or the beloved object.

A Verb Passive expresses the suffering, feeling, or undergoing of something; and therefore implies an object acted upon, and an agent by which it is acted upon; as, to be loved; “Wilhelmina Stubbs is loved by me.”

[Pg 82]A Verb Neuter expresses neither action nor passion, but a state of being; as, I bounce, I lie.

“Fact, Madam!”
“Gracious, Major!”

Of Verbs Regular, Irregular, and Defective, we shall have somewhat to say hereafter.

Verbs Comic are, for the most part, verbs which cannot be found in the dictionary, and are used to[Pg 83] express ordinary actions in a jocular manner; as, to “morris,” to “bolt,” to “mizzle,” which signify to go or to depart; to “bone,” to “prig,” that is to say, to steal; to “collar,” which means to seize, an expression probably derived from the mode of prehension, or rather apprehension characteristic of the New Police, as it is one very much in the mouths of those who most frequently come in contact with that body: to “lush,” or drink; to “grub,” or eat; to “sell,” or deceive, &c.

Under the head of Verbs Comic, the Yankee-isms, I “calculate,” I “reckon,” I “realise,” I “guess,” and the like, may also be properly enumerated.

Auxiliary, or helping Verbs (by the way, we marvel that the Americans do not call their servants auxiliaries instead of helps,) are those, by the help of which we are chiefly enabled to conjugate our verbs in English. They are, do, be, have, shall, will, may, can, with their variations; and let and must, which have no variation.

Let, however, when it is anything but a helping verb, as, for instance, when it signifies to hinder, makes lettest and letteth. The phrase, “This House to Let,” generally used instead of “to be let,” really meaning the reverse of what it is intended to convey, is a piece of comic English.

[Pg 84]To verbs belong Number, Person, Mood, and Tense. These may be called the properties of a verb; and like those of opium, they are soporiferous properties. There are two very important objects which the writer of every book has, or ought to have in view, to get a reader who is wide awake, and to keep him so:—the latter of which, when Number, Person, Mood, and Tense are to be treated of, is no such easy matter; seeing that the said writer is then in some danger of going to sleep himself. Never mind. If we nod, let the reader wink. What can’t be cured must be endured.

SECTION II.

OF NUMBER AND PERSON.

Verbs have two numbers, the Singular and the Plural; as, “I fiddle, we fiddle,” &c.

In each number there are three persons; as

What a deal there is in every Grammar about love! Here the following Lines, by a Young Lady (now no more), addressed to Lindley Murray, deserve to be recorded:—

[Pg 85] “Oh, Murray! fatal name to me,
Thy burning page with tears is wet;
Since first ‘to love’ I learned of thee,
Teach me, ah! teach me ‘to forget!’”

SECTION III.

OF MOODS AND PARTICIPLES.

Mood or Mode is a particular form of the verb, or a certain variation which it undergoes, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion, is represented.

The moods of verbs are five, the Indicative, the Imperative, the Potential, the Subjunctive, and the Infinitive.

The Indicative Mood simply points out or declares a thing: as, “He teaches, he is taught;” or it asks a question: as, “Does he teach? Is he taught?”

Q. Why is old age the best teacher?

A. Because he gives you the most wrinkles.

Q. Why does a rope support a rope-dancer?

A. Because it is taught.

The Imperative Mood commands, exhorts, entreats, or permits: as, “Vanish thou; trot ye; let us hop; be off!”

The Potential Mood implies possibility or liberty,[Pg 86] power, will, or obligation: as, “A waiter may be honest. You may stand upon truth or lie. I can filch. He would cozen. They should learn.”

The Subjunctive Mood is used to represent a thing as done conditionally; and is preceded by a conjunction, expressed or understood, and accompanied by another verb: as, “If the skies should fall, larks would be caught.” “Were I to punch your head, I should serve you right;” that is, “if I were to punch your head.”

The Infinitive Mood expresses a thing generally, without limitation, and without any distinction of number or person: as, “to quarrel, to fight, to be licked.”

The Participle is a peculiar form of the verb, and is so called, because it participates in the properties both of a verb and of an adjective: as, “May I have the pleasure of dancing with you?” “Mounted on a tub he addressed the bystanders.” “Having uplifted a stave, they departed.”

The Participles are three; the Present or Active, the Perfect or Passive, and the Compound Perfect: as, “I felt nervous at the thought of popping the question, but that once popped, I was not sorry for having popped it.”

The worst of popping the question is, that the report is always sure to get abroad.

 [Pg 87]

SECTION IV.

OF THE TENSES.

Tense is the distinction of time, and consists of six divisions, namely, the Present, the Imperfect, the Perfect, the Pluperfect, and the First and Second Future Tenses.

Time is also distinguished by a fore lock, scythe, and hour-glass; but the youthful reader must bear in mind, that these things are not to be confounded with tenses.

The Present Tense, as its name implies, represents an action or event occurring at the present time: as, “I lament; rogues prosper; the mob rules.”

The Imperfect Tense represents a past action or event, but which, like a mutton chop, may be either thoroughly done, or not thoroughly done; were it meet, we should say under-done: as,

“When I was a little boy some fifteen years ago,
My mammy doted on me—Lork! she made me quite a show.”

“When our reporter left, the Honourable Gentleman was still on his legs.”

[Pg 88]The legs of most “Honourable Gentlemen” must be tolerably stout ones; for the “majority” do not stand on trifles. However, we are not going to commit ourselves, like some folks, nor to get committed, like other folks; so we will leave “Honourable Gentlemen” to manage matters their own way.

The Perfect Tense declares a thing to have been done at some time, though an indefinite one, antecedent to the present time. That, however, which the Perfect Tense represents as done, is completely, or, as we say of John Bull, when he is humbugged by the thimble-rig people, regularly done; as, “I have been out on the river.” “I have caught a crab.”

Catching a crab is a thing regularly (in another sense than completely) done, when civic swains pull young ladies up to Richmond. We beg to inform persons unacquainted with aquatic phraseology, that “pulling up” young ladies, or others, is a very different thing from “pulling up” an omnibus conductor or a cabman. What an equivocal language is ours! How much less agreeable to be “pulled up” at Bow Street than to be “pulled up” in a wherry! how wide the discrepancy between “pulling up” radishes and “pulling up” horses!

[Pg 89]The Pluperfect Tense represents a thing as doubly past; that is, as past previously to some other point of time also past; as, “I fell in love before I had arrived at years of discretion.”

The First Future Tense represents the action as yet to come, either at a certain or an uncertain[Pg 90] time; as, “The tailor will send my coat home to-morrow; and when I find it perfectly convenient, I shall pay him.”

The Second Future intimates that the action will be completed at or before the time of another future action or event; as, “I wonder how many conquests I shall have made by to-morrow morning.”

N.B. One ball is often the means of killing a great many people.

The consideration of the tenses suggests various moral reflections to the thinking mind.

A few examples will perhaps suffice:—

1. Present, though moderate fruition, is preferable to splendid, but contingent futurity; i. e. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

2. Imperfect nutrition is less to be deprecated than privation of aliment;—a new way of putting an old proverb, which we need not again insert, respecting half a loaf.

3. Perfect callidity was the distinguishing attribute of the Curved Pedestrian.

Callidity is another word for craftiness; but for the exercise of the reader’s ingenuity, we forbear to mention the person alluded to as so remarkable for his astutious qualities.

[Pg 91]Q. What species of writing is most conducive to morality?

A. Text-hand.

SECTION V.

the conjugation of the auxiliary verbs To Have and To Be.

We have observed that boys, in conjugating verbs, give no indications of delight, except that which an ingenuous disposition always feels in the acquisition of knowledge. Now, having arrived at that part of the Grammar in which it becomes necessary that these same verbs should be considered, we feel ourselves in an awkward dilemma. The omission of the conjugations is a serious omission—which, of course, is objectionable in a comic work—and the insertion of them would be equally serious, and therefore quite as improper. What shall we do? We will adopt a middle course; referring the reader to Murray and other talented authors for full information on these matters; and requesting him to be content with our confining ourselves to what is more especially suitable to these pages—a short summary of the Comicalities of verbs.

The Conjugation of a verb is the[Pg 92] combination and arrangement of its numbers, persons, moods, and tenses.

The Comicalities of verbs consist in certain liberties taken with their numbers, persons, moods, and tenses.

The Conjugation of an active verb is called the Active Voice, and that of a passive Verb the Passive Voice.

If verbs have voices, it is but reasonable that walls should have ears.

The auxiliary and active verb To Have is thus peculiarly conjugated by some people in some of its moods and tenses.

TO HAVE.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

PERFECT TENSE.

 [Pg 93]

FIRST FUTURE TENSE.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

POTENTIAL MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

 [Pg 94]

INFINITIVE MOOD.

PARTICIPLES.

The auxiliary and neuter verb To Be, is maltreated as follows:

TO BE.

(Toby or not Toby?—that is the question!)

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

“When I say as you was, I mean, as you were.”

 [Pg 95]

PERFECT TENSE.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

INFINITIVE MOOD.

PARTICIPLES.

If being a younster, I had not been smitten,
Of having been jilted I should not complain,
Take warning from me all ye lads who are bitten,
When this part of Grammar occurs to your brain.

As there is a certain intensity of feeling abroad, which renders people indisposed to trouble themselves with verbal matters, we shall take the liberty of making very short work of the Regular Verbs. Even Murray can only afford to conjugate one example,—To Love. The learner[Pg 96] must amplify this part of the Grammar for himself: and we recommend him to substitute for “to love,” some word less harrowing to a sensitive mind: as, “to fleece, to tax,” verbs which excite disagreeable emotions only in a sordid one; and which also, by association of ideas, conduct us to useful reflections on Political Economy. We advise all whom it may concern, however, to pay the greatest attention to this part of the Grammar, and before they come to the Verbs Regular, to make a particular study of the Auxiliary Verbs: not only for the excellent reasons set forth in “Tristram Shandy,” but also to avoid those awkward mistakes in which the Comicalities of the Verbs, or Verbal Comicalities, chiefly consist.

“Did it rain to-morrow?” asked Monsieur Grenouille.

“Yes it was!” replied Monsieur Crapaud.

We propose the following as an auxiliary mode of conjugating verbs:—“I love to roam on the crested foam, Thou lovest to roam on the crested foam, He loves to roam on the crested foam, We love to roam on the crested foam, Ye or you love to roam on the crested foam, They love to roam on the crested foam,” &c. These words, if set to music, might serve for a grammatical glee, and would, at all events, be productive of mirth.

 [Pg 97]

The Auxiliary Verbs, too, are very useful when a peculiar emphasis is required: as, “I shall give you a drubbing!” “Will you?” “I know a trick worth two of that.” “Do you, though?” “It might,” as the Quaker said to the Yankee, who wanted to know what his name might be; “it might be Beelzebub, but it is not.”

Now we may as well say what we have to say about the conjugation of regular verbs active.

 [Pg 98]

SECTION VI.

THE CONJUGATION OF REGULAR VERBS ACTIVE.

Regular Verbs Active are known by their forming their imperfect tense of the indicative mood, and their perfect participle, by adding to the verb ed, or d only when the verb ends in e: as,

Here should follow the conjugation of the regular active verb, or, as a Cockney Romeo would say, the regular torturing verb, To Love; but we have already assigned a good reason for omitting it; besides which we have to say, that we think it a verb highly unfit for conjugation by youth, as it tends to put ideas into their heads which they would otherwise never have thought of; and it is moreover our opinion, that several of our most gifted poets may, with reason, have attributed those unfortunate attachments which, though formed in early youth, served to embitter their whole lives, to the poison which they thus sucked in with the milk, so to speak, of their Mother Tongue, the Grammar.

[Pg 99]PASSIVE.

Verbs Passive are said to be regular, when their perfect participle is formed by the addition of d, or ed to the verb: as, from the verb “To bless,” is formed the passive, “I am blessed, I was blessed, I shall be blessed,” &c.

The conjugation of a passive verb is nothing more than the repetition of that of the auxiliary To Be, the perfect participle being added.

And now, having cut the regular verbs (as Alexander did the Gordian knot) instead of conjugating them, let us proceed to consider the

IRREGULAR VERBS.

SECTION VII.

Irregular Verbs are those of which the imperfect tense and the perfect participle are not formed by adding d or ed to the verb: as,

To say I am blown, is, under certain circumstances, such as windy and tempestuous weather, proper enough; but I am blowed, it will at once be perceived, is not only an ungrammatical, but also a vulgar expression.

[Pg 100]Great liberties are taken with the Irregular Verbs, insomuch that in the mouths of some persons, divers of them become doubly irregular in the formation of their participles. Among such Irregular Verbs we may enumerate the following:—

Some verbs which in this country are held to be regular, are treated as irregular verbs in America: as,

 [Pg 101]

SECTION VIII.

OF DEFECTIVE VERBS.

Most men have five senses,
Most verbs have six tenses;
But as there are some folks
Who are blind, deaf, or dumb folks,
Just so there are some verbs
Defective, or rum verbs,

which are used only in some of their moods and tenses.

The principal of them are these:—

There is not, perhaps, anything in the defective verbs peculiarly valuable in a comic point of view. However, it should not be forgotten, that

Can is one of the signs of the POT-ential Mood;

Will, Would reminds us of the Drapier’s Letters.

“Must” is for the House of Commons (it used to be for the King).

[Pg 102]Ought, ought, with 1 before it, stands, (in schoolboy phrase) for 100.

’Tis naught, so to speak, however, says Murray.

[Pg 103]

OF ADVERBS.

Having as great a dislike as the youngest of our readers can have to repetitions, we shall not say what an adverb is over again. It is, nevertheless, right to observe, that some adverbs are compared: as, far, farther, farthest; near, nearer, nearest. In comparing those which end in ly, we use more and most: as, slowly, more slowly, most slowly.

Q. Who, of all the civic functionaries, moves “most slowly?”

A. Mr. Hobler.

There are a great many adverbs in the English Language: their number is probably even greater than that of abusive epithets. They are divisible into certain classes; the chief of which are Number, Order, Place, Time, Quantity, Manner or Quality, Doubt, Affirmation, Negation, Interrogation, and Comparison.

A nice little list, truly! and perhaps some of our readers may suppose that we are going to exemplify it at length: if so, all we can say with regard to their expectation is, that we wish they may[Pg 104] get it gratified. In the meantime, we will not turn our Grammar into a dictionary, to please anybody. However, we have no objection to a brief illustration of the uses and properties of adverbs, as contained in the following passage:—

“Formerly, when first I began to preach and to teach, whithersoever I went, the little boys followed me, and now and then pelted me with brick-bats, as heretofore they pelted Ebenezer Grimes. And whensoever I opened my mouth, straightways the ungodly began to crow. Oftentimes was I hit in the mouth with an orange: yea, and once, moreover, with a rotten egg; whereat there was much laughter, which, notwithstanding, I took in good part, and wiped my face, and looked pleasantly. For peradventure I said, they will listen to my sermon; yea, and after that we may have a collection. So I was nowise discomfited; wherefore I advise thee, Brother Habakkuk, to take no heed of thy persecutors, seeing that I, whereas I was once little better off than thyself, have now a chapel of mine own. And herein let thy mind be comforted, that, preach as much as thou wilt against the Bishop, thou wilt not, therefore, in these days, be in danger of the pillory. Howbeit,” &c.

Vide Life of the late pious and Rev. Samuel Simcox (letter to Habbakuk Brown).

[Pg 105]

OF PREPOSITIONS.

Prepositions are, for the most part, put before nouns and pronouns: as, “out of the frying-pan into the fire.”

Two prepositions, with and without, are sometimes (as we have been informed) used in the place of substantives: as, “cold without, warm with.”

The preposition of is sometimes used as a part of speech of peculiar signification, and one to which no name has as yet been applied: as, “What have you been doing of?”

At and up are not rarely used as verbs, but we should scarcely have been justified in so classing them by the authority of any polite writer; such use of them being confined to the vulgar: as, “Now then, Bill, at him again.” “So she upped with her fists, and fetched him a whop.”

After is improperly pronounced arter, and against, agin: as, “Hallo! Jim, vot are you arter? don’t you know that ere’s agin the Law?”

[Pg 106]

OF CONJUNCTIONS.

A Conjunction means literally, a union or meeting together. An ill-assorted marriage is

A COMICAL CONJUNCTION.

[Pg 107]But our conjunctions are used to connect words and sentences, and have nothing to do with the joining of hands. They are chiefly of two sorts, the Copulative and Disjunctive.

The Copulative Conjunction is employed for the connection or continuation of a sentence: as, “Jack and Gill went up the Hill,” “I will sing a song if Gubbins will,” “A thirsty man is like a City Giant, because he is a Gog for drink.”

The Conjunction Disjunctive is used not only for purposes of connection, but also to express opposition of meaning in different degrees: as, “Though Lord John is as cunning as a Fox, yet Sir Robert is as deep as a Pitt.” “We pay less for our letters, but shall have to pay more for our panes: they have lightened our postage, but they will darken our rooms.”

Conjunctions are the hooks and eyes of Language, in which, as well as in dress, it is very possible to make an awkward use of them: as, “For if the year consist of 365 days 6 hours, and January have 31 days, then the relation between the corpuscular theory of light and the new views of Mr. Owen is at once subverted: for, ‘When Ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise:’ because 1760 yards make a mile; and it is universally acknowledged that ‘war is the madness[Pg 108] of many for the gain of a few:’ therefore Sir Isaac Newton was quite right in supposing the diamond to be combustible.”

The word as, so often used in this and other Grammars, is a conjunction: as, “Mrs. A. is as well as can be expected.”

[Pg 109]The Siamese twins formed a singular conjunction.

A tin pot fastened to a dog’s tail is a disagreeable conjunction to the unfortunate animal.

A happy pair may be regarded as an uncommon conjunction.

[Pg 110]

INTERJECTIONS.

We have said almost enough about their Etymology already. Still, it may not be superfluous to bestow a passing notice on the singularly expressive character of certain of these parts of speech, heard, it is true, repeatedly; but unaccountably omitted in all previous Grammars. For instance, how many lives does the warning, “Hoy!” of the coachman or cab-driver daily save? What an amount of infantile aberrations from propriety is the admonitory “Paw-paw!” the means of checking. With what felicity is acquiescence denoted by “Umph!” The utility of the Interjections on various occasions, such as our meals, for example, in enabling us to economise our speech, is very striking.

[Pg 111]

OF DERIVATION.

Those who know Latin, Greek, Saxon, and the other languages from which our own is formed, do not require to be instructed in philological derivation; and on those who do not understand the said tongues, such instruction would be thrown away. In what manner English words are derived, one from another, the generality of persons know very well: there are, however, a few words and phrases, which it is expedient to trace to their respective sources; not only because such an exercise is of itself delightful to the inquiring mind; but because we shall thereby be furnished (as we hope to show) with a test by means of which, on hearing an expression for the first time, we shall be able, in most instances, to decide at once respecting its nature and quality.

There are several words in the English Language which were originally Terms of Art, but came in process of time to be applied[Pg 112] metaphorically to the common purposes of discourse. Thus lodgings are sometimes called quarters; a word which, in its restricted sense, signifies the lodgings of soldiers; ill habits, like diseases, are said to be remedied; men hope, as if indicted for an offence, that ladies will acquit them of inattention, and so forth. When, as in the instances cited, the word or phrase can be traced back either to one of the Learned Professions, or to any source savouring of gentility, it is esteemed a proper one, and there is no objection to its use.

Now we have divers other words, of which many have but recently come into vogue, which, though by no means improper or immoral, are absolutely unutterable in any polite assembly. It is not, at first, very easy to see what can be the objection to their use; but derivation explains it for us in the most satisfactory manner. The truth is, that the expressions in question take their origin from various trades and occupations, in which they have, for the most part, a literal meaning; and we now perceive what horrible suspicions respecting one’s birth, habits, and education, their figurative employment would be likely to excite. To make the matter indisputably clear, we will explain our position by a few examples.

[Pg 113]

(N.B. All those are obliged to have recourse to the dodge, who are in the habit of outrunning the constable.) But, to proceed with our Etymology:

Numerous examples, similar to the foregoing, will, no doubt, present themselves, in addition, to the mind of the enlightened student. We have not, however, quite done yet with our remarks on this division of our subject. The intrinsic vulgarity of all modes of speech which may be traced to mean or disreputable persons, will, of course, not be questioned. But—and as we have got hold of a nice bone, we may as well get all the marrow we can out of it—the principle which is now under[Pg 115] consideration has a much wider range than is apparent at first sight.

Now we will suppose a red-hot lover addressing the goddess of his idolatry—by the way, how strange it is, that these goddesses should be always having their temples on fire, that a Queen of Hearts should ever be seated on a burning throne!—but to return to the lover: he was to say something. Well, then, let A. B. be the lover. He expresses himself thus:—

“Mary, my earthly hopes are centred in you. You need not doubt me; my heart is true as the dial to the sun. Words cannot express how much I love you. Nor is my affection an ordinary feeling: it is a more exalted and a more enduring sentiment than that which usually bears its name. I have done. I am not eloquent: I can say no more, than that I deeply and sincerely love you.”

This, perhaps, will be regarded by connoisseurs as tolerably pathetic, and for the kind of thing not very ridiculous. Now, let A. S. S. be the lover; and let us have his version of the same story:—

“Mary, my capital in life is invested in you. You need not stick at giving me credit; my heart is as safe as the Bank of England. The sum total of my love for you defies calculation. Nor is my attachment anything in the common way. It is a[Pg 116] superior and more durable article than that in general wear. My stock of words is exhausted. I am no wholesale dealer in that line. All I can say is, that I have a vast fund of unadulterated affection for you.”

In this effusion the Stock Exchange, the Multiplication Table, and the Linendraper’s and Grocer’s shops have been drawn upon for a clothing to the suitor’s ideas; and by an unhappy choice of words, the most delightful and amiable feelings of our nature, without which Life would be a Desert and Man a bear, are invested with a ridiculous disguise.

We would willingly enlarge upon the topic which we have thus slightly handled, but that we feel that we should by so doing, intrench too far on the boundaries of Rhetoric, to which science, more particularly than to Grammar, the consideration of Metaphor belongs; besides which, it is high time to have done with Etymology. Here, then, gentlemen, if you please, we shall pull up.

“Pull up! what an expression!”

“Well, Sir, did you never hear that next to the Bar the first school of grammatical elegance is the Stage?”

[Pg 117]

“Now then, reader, if you are quite ready, we are—All right! * * * *”

The asterisks are intended to stand for a word used in speaking to horses. Don’t blush, young ladies; there’s not a shadow of harm in it: but as to spelling it, we are as unable to do so as the ostler’s boy was, who was thrashed for his ignorance by his father.

“Where are we now, coachman?”

SYNTAX.

“The third part of Grammar, Sir, wot treats of the agreement and construction of words in a sentence.”

“Does a coachman say wot for which because he has a licence?”

“Can’t say, Ma’am?”

“Drive on, coachman.”

And we must drive on, or boil on, or whatever it is the fashion to call getting on in these times.

[Pg 118]A sentence is an aggregate of words forming a complete sense.

Sometimes, however, a sentence is an aggregate of words forming complete nonsense: as,

“They are very civil and attentive to the smallest order, and furnish a house entirely complete, for twenty-seven guineas, all new and well seasoned.”—Advertisement in the Times.

Sentences are of two kinds, simple and compound.

A simple sentence has in it but one subject and one finite verb; that is, a verb to which number and person belong: as, “A joke is a joke.”

A compound sentence consists of two or more simple sentences connected together: as, “A joke is a joke, but a ducking is no joke. Corpulence is the attribute of swine, mayors, and oxen.”

Simple sentences may be divided (if we choose to take the trouble) into the Explicative or explaining; the Interrogative, or asking; the Imperative, or commanding.

An explicative sentence is, in other words, a direct assertion: as, “Sir, you are impertinent.”—Johnson.

An interrogative sentence “merely asks a question:” as, “Are you a policeman? How’s your Inspector?”

 [Pg 119]

“How’s your Inspector?”

An imperative sentence is expressive of command, exhortation, or entreaty: as, “Shoulder arms!” “Turn out your toes!” “Charge bayonets!”

A phrase is two or more words properly put together, making either a sentence or part of a sentence: as, “Good morning!” “Your most obedient!”

[Pg 120]Some phrases consist of two or more words improperly put together: these are improper phrases: as, “Now then, old stupid!” “Stand out of the sunshine!”

“What a duck of a man!”

Other phrases consist of words put together by ladies: as, “A duck of a man,” “A love of[Pg 121] a shawl,” “so nice,” “quite refreshing,” “sweetly pretty.” “Did you ever?” “No I never!”

Other phrases again consist of French and English words put together by people of quality, because their knowledge of both languages is pretty nearly equal: as, “I am au désespoir,” “mis hors de combat,” “quite ennuyé,” or rather in nine cases out of ten, “ennuyée,”—“I have a great envie” to do so and so. These constitute an important variety of comic English.

Besides the above, there are various phrases which we may call elliptical phrases, consisting principally of the peculiar terms employed in the different trades and professions: as,

“A Milton Lost,” by booksellers.

“A Lady (of the Lake) in sheets,” do.

“One college (pudding) for No. 6,” by waiters.

“To carry off:” as, “See how the old woman in a red cloak carries off the tower,” by painters, &c.

The principal parts of a simple sentence are, the subject, the attribute, and the object.

If you want to know what subjects and objects are, you should go to the Morgue at Paris. But in Grammar—

The subject is the thing chiefly spoken of; the attribute is that which is affirmed or denied of it; and the object is the thing affected by such action.

[Pg 122]The nominative denotes the subject, and usually goes before the verb or attribute; and the word or phrase, denoting the object, follows the verb; as, “The flirt torments her lover.” Here, a flirt is the subject; torments, the attribute or thing affirmed; and her lover, the object.

[Pg 123]Yes, and a pretty object he is too, sometimes. But then we shall be told that he is not an object—of attachment. Alas! that is the very reason why he is an object—of compassion, or ridicule, according to people’s dispositions.

It may be also said that the flirt herself is a pretty object. All we can say is, that we never saw such a flirt, nor do we believe that we ever shall.

To torment, it seems, is the attribute of the flirt, as it is that of the ——. Well! no matter. Much good may the fellowship do her: that is all!

It strikes us, though, that we are somewhat digressing from our subject, namely Syntax, which,

Principally consists of two parts (which the flirt does not, for she is all body and no soul) Concord and Government.

Concord is the agreement which one word has with another, in gender, number, case or person.

Note.—That a want of agreement between words does not invalidate deeds. We apprehend that such an engagement as the following, properly authenticated, would hold good in law.

[Pg 124]Also that a friend of ours, to whom the following bill was sent, could not have refused to discharge it on the score of its incorrect grammar.

1835Mr. ——

Jenery 10To J. Burton.

[Pg 125]Government is that power which one part of speech has over another, in directing its mood, tense, or case.

Government is also that power, of which, if the Chartists have their way, we shall soon see very little in this country.

Hurrah!
No taxes!
No army!
No navy!
No parsons!
No lawyers!
No Commons!
No Lords!
No anything!
No nothing!

To produce the agreement and right disposition of words in a sentence, the following rules (and observations?) should be carefully studied.

RULE I.

A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person: as, “I perceive.” “Thou hast been to Brixton.” “Apes chatter.” “Frenchmen gabble.”

Certain liberties are sometimes taken with this[Pg 126] rule: as, “I own I likes good beer.” “You’m a fine fellow, aint yer?” “He’ve been to the Squire’s.” Such modes of speaking are adopted by those who neither know nor care anything about grammatical correctness: but there are other persons who care a great deal about it, but unfortunately do not know what it consists in. Such folks are very fond of saying, “How it rain!” “It fit you very well.” “He say he think it very unbecoming,” “I were gone before you was come,” and so forth, in which forms of speech they perceive a peculiar elegance.

The infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is sometimes used as the nominative case to the verb: as “to be good is to be happy:” which is as grammatical an assertion as “Toby Good is Toby Happy;” and rather surpasses it in respect of sense. “That two pippins are a pair, is a proposition which no man in his senses will deny.”

“To be a connoisseur in boots,
To hate all rational pursuits,
To make your money fly, as though
Gold would as fast as mushrooms grow;
To haunt the Opera, save whene’er
There’s anything worth hearing there;
To smirk, to smile, to bow, to dance,
To talk of what they eat in France,
[Pg 127]To languish, simper, sue, and sigh,
And stuff her head with flattery;
Are means to gain that worthless part
A fashionable lady’s heart.”

Here are examples enough, in all conscience, of infinitive moods serving as nominative cases.

All verbs, save only in the infinitive mood or participle, require a nominative case either expressed or understood: as, “Row with me down the river,” that is “Row thou, or do thou row.” “Come where the aspens quiver,” “come thou, or do thou come.” “Fly not yet;” “fly not thou, or do not thou fly.” “Pass the ruby;” “pass thou, or do thou pass the ruby” (not the Rubicon). “Drink to me only;” “drink thou, or do thou drink only.” “Wake, dearest, wake;” “wake thou, or do thou wake.” “Tell her I love her;” “tell thou, or do thou tell her I love her.” In short, you cannot listen to a hawker of ballads, crying his commodities about the streets, without hearing illustrations of the foregoing rule. “Move on!” the well known mandate of policemen to those who create obstructions, is a very common exemplification of it. The nominative case is easily understood in the latter instance; and the person addressed, if he pretend that it is not, does so at his own peril.

[Pg 128]A well known popular song affords an example of the violation of this rule.

“Ven as the Captain comed for to hear on’t,
Wery much applauded vot she’d done.”

The verb applauded has here no nominative case, whereas it ought to have been governed by the pronoun he. “He very much applauded,” &c.

[Pg 129]Every nominative case, except when made absolute, or used, like the Latin Vocative, in addressing a person, should belong to some verb, implied if not expressed. A beautiful example of this grammatical maxim, and one, too, that explains itself, is impressed upon the mind very soon after its first introduction to letters: as,

“Who kill’d Cock Robin?
I, said the sparrow,
With my bow and arrow;
I kill’d Cock Robin.”

Of the neglect of this rule also, the ballad lately mentioned presents an instance: as,

“Four-and-twenty brisk young fellows
Clad in jackets, blue array,—
And they took poor Billy Taylor
From his true love all avay.”

The only verb in these four lines is the verb took, which is governed by the pronoun they. The four-and-twenty brisk young fellows, therefore, though undeniably in the nominative, have no verb to belong to: while, at the same time, whatever may be thought of their behaviour to Mr. William Taylor, they are certainly not absolute in point of case.

[Pg 130]When a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be taken as the subject of the affirmation, it may agree with either of them: as, “Two-and-sixpence is half-a-crown.” Due regard, however, should be paid to that noun which is most naturally the subject of the verb: it would be clearly wrong to say, “Ducks and green peas is a delicacy.” “Fleas is a nuisance.”

A nominative case, standing without a personal tense of a verb, and being put before a participle, independently of the rest of the sentence, is called a case absolute: as, “My brethren, to-morrow being Sunday, I shall preach a sermon in Smithfield; after which we shall join in a hymn, and that having been sung, Brother Biggs will address you.”

The objective case is sometimes incorrectly made absolute by showmen and others: as, “Here, gentlemen and ladies, you will see that great warrior Napoleon Bonaparte, standing agin a tree with his hands in his pockets, him taking good care to keep out of harm’s vay. And there, on the extreme right, you will observe the Duky Vellinton a valking about amidst the red-hot cannon balls, him not caring von straw.”

 [Pg 131]

RULE II.

Two or more singular nouns, joined together by a copulative conjunction, expressed or understood, are equivalent to a plural noun, and therefore require verbs, nouns, and pronouns, agreeing with them in the plural number: as, “Veal, wine, and vinegar” (take care how you pronounce these words) “are very good victuals I vow.” “Burke and Hare were nice men.” “A hat without a[Pg 132] crown, a tattered coat, threadbare and out at elbows, a pair of breeches which looked like a piece of dirty patchwork diversified by various holes, and of boots which a Jew would hardly have raked from a kennel, at once proclaimed him a man who had seen better days.”

This rule is not always adhered to in discourse quite so closely as a fastidious ear would require it to be: as, “And so, you know, Mary, and I, and Jane was a dusting the chairs, and in comes Missus.”

RULE III.

When the conjunction disjunctive comes between two nouns, the verb, noun, or pronoun, is of the singular number, because it refers to each of such nouns taken separately: as, “A cold in the head, or a sore eye is a great disadvantage to a lover.”

If singular pronouns, or a noun and pronoun of different persons, be disjunctively connected, the verb must agree with the person which stands nearest to it: as “I or thou art.” “Thou or I am.” “I, thou, or he is,” &c. But as this way of writing or speaking is very inelegant, and as saying, “Either I am, or thou art,” and so on, will always render having recourse to it[Pg 133] unnecessary, the rule just laid down is almost useless, except inasmuch as it suggests a moral maxim, namely, “Always be on good terms with your next door neighbour.”

It also forcibly reminds us of some beautiful lines by Moore, in which the heart, like a tendril, is said to twine round the “nearest and loveliest thing.” Now the person which is placed nearest the verb is the object of choice; ergo, the most agreeable person—ergo, the loveliest person or thing.