- 1 -

Robert Einarsson

Knucklehead Books

Edmonton, Alberta

rreinarsson@gmail.com

780-224-7822

A Complete Universal Grammar

Of the English Language

by Robert Einarsson

c. 2013

- 2 -

Illustrated by Robert Einarsson

- 3 -

This book is dedicated to John and Sue Warkentin,

who expected me to know some grammar

- 4 -

A Complete Universal Grammar of the English Language

Contents

Foreword

Part I — Universal Grammar Theory

Part II — Accidence: the Grammar of Words

The Noun Substantive

The Attributes of Substance

The Connectives

Part III — Syntax: the Grammar of Clusters

The Constituents of the Clause

A Closer Look at Predicates

Parsing for Grammatical Functions

Bibliography

- 5 -

The severe Roman bestowed upon the language of his country the appellation of patrius

sermo, the paternal or national speech; but we, deriving from the domesticity of Saxon

life a truer and tenderer appreciation of the best and purest source of linguistic

construction, more happily name our home-born English the mother tongue. George

Marsh, Lectures on the English Language.

I learned more in three weeks in Robert Einarsson’s class than I learned in three years of

high school. Student evaluation.

We have a priori reasons for believing that in every sentence there is some one order of

words more effective than any other; and that this order is the one which presents the

elements of the proposition in the succession in which they may be most readily put

together. Herbert Spenser, The Philosophy of Style.

- 6 -

Because I belong to one of the first generations in history not to be thoroughly schooled in the

subject of grammar, my first immersion into this subject came only when I studied a second

language, namely French. During the whole of one summer at university, I studied French in

class for three hours a day, five days a week, and spent the entire rest of the day up until sleep

time further immersing myself into the language, notes, hundreds of flashcards, listening to

French radio without understanding a word. In other words, full immersion. By the end of the

summer I had a working knowledge of French, and a good insight into how grammar works in a

language.

However, the differences between the French and English languages meant that I was still

in the dard regarding many grammatical structures of English. Here I was, an English major

hoping to become an English professor, unable to discuss English grammar with any sort of

proficiency or understanding! I really could not tolerate being in such a position!

Furthermore, during my degree, I took courses in linguistics that were difficult and very

rewarding, but they did not account for the concepts and terminology of traditional grammar,

so when I found myself still frustrated about this subject I embarked upon a studious course of

self-education in traditional grammar. I began by reading The Philosophy of Grammar by Otto

Jespersen, and pledged myself to look up and record the definitions of every grammatical term I

encountered, and the grammatical terminology that also appeared within those definitions, and

the ones within those definitions, until such time as I felt that I had mastered the technical

vocabulary of the subject.

The volumes by iconic grammarians like Jespersen, I learned, were from a tradition

called “philological grammar,” which was the predominant school during the Victorian era.

Typical of Victorian scholars, these grammarians produced mammoth volumes of data on many

- 7 -

languages, and were able to deduce detailed histories of ancient and even extinct languages

through a comparison of existing modern languages. The accomplishments of the Victorian-era

philological grammarians are monumental. They were akin to paleontologists of language, and

have many important discoveries and vast catalogs of knowledge to their credit. In the Twentieth

Century, philological grammar gave way to a new way of studying language, and a new science

called Linguistics. The Linguists are characterized specifically by their application of scientific

method to the study of language. This was a new way to look at language, and gave birth to a

movement that soon rendered philological grammar obsolete.

These are my earlier encounters with the subject of grammar.

However, in all of these encounters, I always felt that I was missing something essential.

There was always an underlying “why” that never was answered, and I remained suspended in

this way until the moment that I encountered a work on Universal Grammar written during the

Scottish Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century. This view of grammar suddenly tied

everything together for me, because it gave a general theory of how the parts of grammar fit

together. There are six or seven major authors in the Scottish tradition of Universal Grammar,

and they are using ideas that date back to the Scholastic era, and ultimately derive from

Aristotle's works, including those on grammar (Of Interpretation), on logic (The Categories),

and on science (Physics). Physics is in there because this is where Aristotle makes the distinction

between Substance and Attribute, concepts that were adopted by grammarians and applied to

language. It turned out that the Substance-Attribute formula applied to the Parts of Speech just as

it applied to the natural world. Substance-Attribute grammar explains the Parts of Speech, in that

the noun is substance and verbs and adjectives are two kinds of attributes. This book is unique

among textbooks on the subject of English grammar because it is guided by these principles of

- 8 -

the Eighteenth Century Universal Grammar school of language analysis. These principles state

that syntactical processing may be reduced to a certain set of functions, and that these functions

operate on more than one syntactical level at the same time.

Most available grammar handbooks today are obsessed with grammatical errors. This

book covers much more than just the dimension of grammatical errors. It highlights correct and

superior writing style much more than just erroneous writing. It delves into the underlying

reasons of every grammatical concept or construct. Above all, this is a teaching book, not a mere

catalogue, such as a typical grammar handbook today. Finally, the book also reproduces

significant extracts from the original universal grammar texts, which are wonderfully lucid and

illuminating.

Universal grammar is a complete system of grammar because it uses a few basic

principles to describe the functions of language, and applies these principles to the several

consecutive layers of language. The functions of grammar that the universal grammarians place

at the center of language are the Parts of Speech.

This book demonstrates the rationalist approach to grammar that proceeds on a question

and answer basis. Why would we classify the verb and the adjective together as Attributes?

Answer: because they both modify a noun in one way or another. Why then should we make two

sub-categories within Attributes? Why divide the sub-categories of “verb” and “adjective”?

Answer: because, of these two kinds of words, only the verb carries the vital elements of

assertion with it. The Parts of Speech categories are thus a rationally grounded way of looking

at language, and you and every student of grammar will be asked to look at language that way,

and apply that kind of reasoning to language.

In other words, English grammar is not a body of information and “don’ts” set out to be

- 9 -

absorbed by meekly subservient students. Grammar is a much fuller study of language. Grammar

is a set of tools for the investigation into language; it is a methodology for studying the patterns,

relationships and tendencies that are to be discovered at work within a language. The grammar of

the English language has not been given to grammarians from on high. Instead, the grammar of

English was deduced by the study of the phenomenon of the English language, and students of

this textbook will be requires to participating in these deductive processes. We observe the

structures at hand by isolation, definition, relationship, analogy and such like forms of reasoning.

Every student who learns grammar re-enacts this discovery of language. Every student of

grammar applies reason to language and engages with bygone grammarians in the same analysis

and the same debates about the best way to understand the phenomenon that we are examining. It

is possible to have an opinion in grammar, and to defend it with a rigorous argument about the

structures under examination. I expect my students to be very opinionated about grammar!

- 10 -

Universal Grammar Theory

- 11 -

Aristotle established the words: subject, predicate, form, matter, energy, potential,

substance, essence, quantity, quality, accidental, relation, cause, genus, species,

individual, indivisible. “Topic: Philosophy of Mind.” Thesa: A Thesaurus of Ideas Web Site.

In Scholasticism the nature of substance is that it exists in itself, independently from

another being. While accidents or attributes are located within another, substance is

located within itself. Substance is what underlies the accidents; it is what persists if even

accidents are changing; insofar as its being in itself is considered, substance is spoken of

as subsistent (substitentia). “Substance and Attributes.” From Death To Life Web Site.

- 12 -

The Parts of Speech are not merely the elementary word types that you learned in elementary

school and promptly and sensibly forgot. The parts of speech are more akin to elementary

functions of the human mind, or at least of human language, and are not merely a loose

taxonomy. What makes universal grammar an explanatory system, and not in fact a "loose

taxonomy," is the hierarchy identified among the parts of speech. The categories are not merely a

list, but a set of levels. The functions that take place among words at one level are exactly the

same as the functions that take place among clusters and networks of words on higher levels.

Clusters form within clusters and lines of relationship radiate like magnetic waves throughout the

words of the sentence. One important universal grammar observation is the decision to

categorize the verb and the adjective as versions of one major function. Both the adjective and

the verb can be seen as essentially noun modifiers:

In examining the different attributes of substances, we readily perceive that some of them

have their essence in motion; such are, "to walk," "to fly," "to strike," "to live," &c.

Others have it in the privation of motion; as, "to stop," to rest," "to cease," "to die," &c.

And others have it in subjects that have nothing to do with either motion or its privation;

such are the attributes of "great" and "little," "wise" and "foolish," "white" and "black,"

and, in a word, the several "quantities" and "qualities" of all things. This therefore

furnishes a natural division of attributives of this order; and grammarians have called all

those, whose essence consists in motion or its privation, VERBS; and all the others have

been called ADJECTIVES; each of which we shall consider separately. (Encyclopaedia

Britannica, 1771:734)

While they both essentially modify the noun, the adjective and the verb are clearly separate

categories because of the extra elements that apply only to the verb, i.e., its use of tense, aspect,

and mood, and especially its ability to perform the act of assertion itself. There is an interesting

- 13 -

gradual scale in the following observation:

The Adjective denotes a simple quality, as brave, cruel, good swift, round, square. The

Participle denotes a quality, together with a certain modification of time; as . . . loving,

which relates to time present . . . [and] loved, which alludes to time past . . . . The Verb is

still more complex than the participle. It not only expresses an attribute, and refers that

attribute to time . . . but it also comprehends an assertion; so that it may form, when

joined to a noun, a complete sentence, or proposition. (Beattie, 348)

Reasoning that the verb and the adjective belong together as attributes, universal grammarians

long ago refuted the still persistent framework which places the noun and verb as equally

fundamental. This framework cannot then explain why we have an adverb but not an "adnoun."

It produces a clearly inefficient diagram. There is something wrong with the role given to

adverbs in this system:

NOUN <---- adjective <-- adverb <-- adverb

VERB <---- adverb <-- adverb

On the other hand, the Universal Grammar schema provides a strong and clear place for the

adverb. Being the modifier both of the verb and adjective, the adverb is a modifier of a modifier,

- 14 -

or what they refer to as a second order attribute:

- 15 -

The Philosophical Lexicon of the Rationalist Tradition in Grammar

One of the keys to learning any subject is its lexicon, the golden chest wherein it keeps all of its

bejeweled secrets, namely, the arcane lingo of this particular magical cult or school of analysis. I

found this out early, as one of my first steps in beginning my independent study of traditional

English grammar was to look up and keep good records of all of the grammatical terminology

that I encountered. Of course, this meant including the words in the definitions that also had to

be looked up, and the words in those definitions, and so on, until such time as I had a very good

understanding of all of the central terminology. I could begin to deduce some of the patterns of

the study already. This fundamental learning certainly gave me a firmer foundation and a

smoother pathway. I have come to understand over the years that a big part of self-education and

labour is figuring out how to approach the job, how to prepare for the job, more and more than

doing the actual job itself. After a time, almost everything becomes just a long extended

preparation. Then you know you have figured some things out. Any time you spend thinking

about strategy and procedure is probably going to be worthwhile.

And here is what I found when I did investigate that vocabulary.

The Rationalist tradition in grammar, what is known in common language simply as

“Traditional Grammar,” traces its roots right to the earliest recorded philosophy, in particular

that of the Greeks, and in particular the works of Aristotle.

Let us begin with one of the most fundamental Aristotelian concepts of all, the

philosophical idea of “substance.”

First it must be mentioned that Aristotle uses the term “substance” in one of his most

important formulations, what is known as his “Ten Predicates” or ten categories. In this

formulation, substance is the primary category, and the other nine (quantity, quality, relation,

- 16 -

situation, time, attitude, condition, action and passion) are predicates and therefore a secondary

kind of entity. They are secondary because they all exist exclusively and only as attributes of the

primary category, substance. Substance is that which exists in and of itself, and attributes are all

of the many characteristics of those things which exist in and of themselves. These

characteristics cannot exist unless there is a primary self-existing thing, a substance, that exists

prior to them and in which they locate their existence.

In the context specifically of language, Aristotle applied the notion of substance and

attribute to the notion of sentence structure, namely that every clause must necessarily contain

both a substance (a noun) and an attribute (a verb) at the very minimum in order to form a

statement or assertion. Aristotle points out that a word taken by itself has all of the features of

meaning except assertion. When you hang some words out there by themselves, eg. “flamboyant

pelicans,” nothing is actually being asserted. But when you add a verb, what you are adding is

essentially the ingredient of assertion: “flamboyant pelicans take to flight.” Grammarians have

extrapolated that, whereas adjectives are simply an attribute of the noun, verbs are a form of

attribute plus assertion. With a verb in play, something is actually being asserted. Therefore, an

adjective plus a noun does not make a sentence, whereas a verb plus a noun does indeed make a

sentence and an assertion.

In On Interpretation and in the Organon, Aristotle penetrates many other mysteries of

fundamental grammatical philosophy. The verb is a word that inherently carries the notion of

change of some kind. Tense is the relation between the time of the incident spoken of and the

time of the speaking of it. Voices are indicative, potential, interrogative or volitional. There are

transitive, intransitive and copular verbs. An “accident” is a change in form which does not alter

the underlying essence. In verbs this would be “run” versus “ran” and “waved” versus “will

- 17 -

wave,” which are all changes in form only and not in the meaning of the verb. Aspect is the state

in which a noun or verb exists with reference to duration, relation, quantity and so on.

All of this wonderful grammatical theorizing originates ultimately in Aristotle. This line

of investigation into language developed by Aristotle became the mainstay of grammatical

theory from Aristotle’s time, throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Eighteenth

Century Universal Grammar school. In Linguistics and Literary Theory (1969), Karl Uitti reveals

linkages between modern linguistics and its early precursors: "for the medieval schoolmen, logic

was the a priori formulation that acted as langue, the system behind the process of utterance"

(56). Uitti shows a single evolution of thought from Aristotelian to Chomsky’s Transformational

grammar.

In this textbook, the Eighteenth Century Universal Grammar school of thought is the

central theoretical source. This was a phenomenon of the Scottish Enlightenment which took

place in the later part of that period and produced eight or ten major dissertations on language

and grammar.

The Universal Grammar movement was antedated by the mighty accomplishments of

Nineteenth Century philology, and the subsequent rise of scientific analysis of language, namely,

Linguistics. The Bibliography of this volume lists a number of the documents that were part of

the doctrine of this Eighteenth Century school of thought in Scotland, including prominently

James Burnett, James Beattie, Hugh Blair, Adam Smith and a number of others. The Eighteenth

Century school of Universal Grammar was a school of thought active in Eighteenth Century

Scotland, during the time of the Scottish Enlightenment. It was an approach that made a rigorous

application of the Medieval (aka “Scholastic”) philosophy of language to the English language.

The article on grammar in the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica derives from the same

- 18 -

school of thought. This is the article that first put English grammar into a systematic framework

for me.

With chapter titles like "Of the Origin and Progress of Language," these documents often

posit a fictional "primitive man" who has all of the faculties of reason but no taught language. On

this basis, they construct narratives that detail the possible evolution of language. Needless to

say, as a history of the evolution of human language, Universal Grammar was utterly naive.

Language did not originate and/or evolve in the ways that these grammarians are positing. But

while they are dubious as literal history, however, as something called notional history,

Universal Grammar gives us a comprehensive and systematic view of English syntax and the

English language. They are historically false, but notionally systematic and insightful.

Furthermore, the philosophical view of language that emerges in these narratives is

specifically a view that is based on the parts of speech. The evolution of language is the

evolution of the parts of speech, as these word categories come into existence, differentiate and

divide. The stem or trunk always appears to be the noun substantive. The other parts of speech

arise in answer to a need that primitive man would encounter in the effort to communicate. In

Hugh Blair, all of the subsequent parts of speech arise to solve needs of definition and

distinction; in Adam Smith, these parts arise in order of most concrete to most abstract.

He argues that the noun substantive is the "first" part of speech. He specifically points to

the most concrete among this concrete category, i.e., the proper name. The proper name would

later be abstracted to form category names. A necessity then emerges for verbs and adjectives.

They both function as attributes that serve to define a particular individual within the category.

At the far end of the evolutionary scale he introduces the preposition category, and then as the

apex, the height of abstraction, the word "of":

- 19 -

A preposition denotes a relation, and nothing but a relation. But before men could

institute a word, which signified a relation, and nothing but a relation, they must have

been able, in some measure, to consider this relation abstractedly from the related objects

. . . . The invention of such a word, therefore, must have required a considerable degree

of abstraction. . . .

The preposition "above", for example, denotes the relation of superiority, not in

abstract, as it is expressed by the word "superiority", but in [a concrete instance].

Ask any man of common acuteness, What relation is expressed by the preposition

"above"? He will readily answer, that of "superiority". By the preposition "below"? He

will as quickly reply, that of "inferiority." But ask him, what relation is expressed by the

preposition "of," and, if he has not beforehand employed his thoughts a good deal upon

these subjects, you may safely allow him a week to consider his answer. . . . The

preposition "of", denotes relation in general . . . . It marks that the noun substantive which

goes before it, is somehow or other related to that which comes after it, but without in

any respect ascertaining how . . . . We often apply it, therefore, to express the most

opposite relations; because, the most opposite relations agree in so far that each of them

comprehends in it the general idea or nature of a relation. We say, "the father of the son",

and "the son of the father;" "the fir-trees of the forest", and the "forest of the fir-trees." . .

. The word "of" . . . serves very well to denote all those relations, because in itself it

denotes no particular relation, but only relation in general; and so far as any particular

relation is collected from such expressions, it is inferred by the mind, not from the

preposition itself, but from the nature and arrangement of the substantives, between

which the preposition is placed. (Smith, 212-213)

- 20 -

The universal grammar debates provide a remarkable range of opinions on the

arrangement and primacy of the parts of speech. As well, they show the folly in dismissing the

parts of speech as an elementary (in the bad sense) word classification or a "mere taxonomy."

The Universal Grammarians are attempting to prove that part of speech categories are rationally

valid, i.e., that they mirror the functions of the mind, or, as they occasionally concede, at least the

functions of language itself. Such a claim will have implications for pedagogy: if this categorical

system is in fact somehow inherent to the mind, teaching will be both easiest and most effective

if it is somehow founded upon this categorical system. I have found first year college students

remarkably adept at analyzing the part of speech components of sentence structure, that is, the

part of speech designation of phrases and clauses, as well as their interconnections (also a part of

speech issue). I can see why these grammarians believed that these categories were somehow

just waiting there to be trained and exploited in the classroom.

In the Universal Grammar view of language, the parts of speech constitute a linguistic

epistemology. The divisions of language reflect the divisions of the mind of Man; they do not

however reflect the divisions of Nature or reality.

The Eighteenth Century school of Universal Grammar, which is where we will derive our

approach to the English language, was called “universal” based on the hypothesis that all

languages would have, and necessarily must have, certain essential functions. All languages must

have substances; these substances must do something, or bear qualities; and these substances

must be capable of being predicated into specific occurrences, times and individual instances.

The Medieval grammar that was one of the classic Seven Liberal Arts was a product

ultimately of Classical Greek philosophy. Three of Aristotle’s works in particular lay down the

principles of the ancient theory of grammar, and these are Physics, Categories and On

- 21 -

Interpretation.

In the Physics, Aristotle describes an underlying material “substratum” or “substance”

that lies beneath all physical objects. In the physical world this substratum of “pure matter” is

from whence all physical objects take their being. The defining feature of substance, and the

material objects which it produces, is independent existence. Substances are understood as those

things which exist independently and in their own right.

In Aristotle’s Categories, substance constitutes the first category, namely, independent

being. Aristotle then identifies nine other categories, all of which constitute ways in which the

underlying substance can exist in the world. These include the Quantity of the substance, and its

Qualities. Also, ways that the Substance can be in Relation to another substance, or that it may

be prosecuting some Action, or that it may sit with Passivity, thereby receiving the action of

some verb. A substance exists with reference to Time and Place, and it exhibits a Posture or

Attitude and Habitual Appearances. These are the nine Attributes that may be asserted of any

Substance or pure matter. So combined with Substance, the nine attributes constitute the famous

Ten Categories of Aristotle.

Now, it may be pointed out that the nine categories other than pure substance are the kind

of things that cannot exist in their own right. You cannot have a quantity without reference to a

quantity of what substance. Quantity alone is not a self-subsisting being. It can only exist when

there is something else to be measured. Quantity must be the quantity of something. Likewise,

the qualities of an object, its colour, its roundness, its hardness, and so on with every descriptive

quality, all of these need to exist within an object that already exists in its own right. Attribute,

therefore, is that which can exist only within some substance.

This coffee cup, for example, exists in its own right, the substance of it being the clay of

- 22 -

which it is made. But all of the attributes of the cup, the particular shape, the colour, the size and

so on, are things which cannot exist in their own right, but must exist within a pre-existing

substance. A colour, for example, cannot exist suspended in air, as it were, and with no substance

within which to rest.

In the Middle Ages, grammarians aligned the philosophical notion of substance with the

grammatical notion of a noun, and so was born the term “noun substantive,” which did grace the

definitions in many dictionaries until very recent times. In turn, they assigned the role of

“attribute” to three separate kinds of words: verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

The Medieval grammarians took this philosophy and aligned the notion of “substance”

with the grammatical notion of the “subject,” and they aligned the notion of “attribute” with the

grammatical notion of the “predicate.” The Substance word therefore is the noun which stands at

the headway to a grammatical utterance; it is the physical and virtual subject of the sentence,

both the subject matter and the sub-stance about which the sentence will “predicate” or

“attribute” its features. In this system, the noun plays the role of substance. Every other word in

the clause will be part of the attributes of that noun.

Together, between the two of them, Substance and Attribute form the backbone of

Aristotle’s theory of grammar, and the theory of grammar that was prevalent throughout the

Middle Ages and up until the Universal Grammar school in the Eighteenth Century, which is the

basis for this textbook on grammar.

The root principle behind universal grammar remains the Aristotelian concept of

substance versus attribute. "Substance" is the term for a thing taken separately from all of its

qualities. The word "substance" in philosophy refers to an entity "having an independent

existence or status" (OED). "Attribution" is the act of predication. Attributes are features of

- 23 -

substances and hence they are things which do not have an independent existence, but which

inhere in something else.

Of course, these are purely metaphysical concepts; the "pure substance" does not exist,

except in the landscape of rational language. In nature there is no unattributed substance;

grammatically, for the purpose of making a sentence, we take something as a substance, the

"subject" of the clause, the independent thing about which we make a predication. Every "noun

substantive" (for example, "man") is an example of a substance without any attributes. "Nouns

adjective," refers to a word that is originally an adjective (the name of an attribute, such as "big,"

"blue," or "modern"), but becomes used as a noun (the name of a substance, such as "bigness,"

"blueness," or "modernity"). There are numerous such categories, including, for example, the

term by which they refer to the infinitive verb: the "participle substantive." Since the infinitive

form of the verb acts merely as the name of an action, eg. to fly, and not the action actually

taking place, it is considered essentially a noun. The infinitive is referred to as "the noun of the

verb." Again, "infinitive" means "not related to time;" hence, it is a verb with no information as

to tense, past, present or future. When it is asserted as actually occurring, the verb is placed

within an actual time, and hence is no longer "infinitive" but becomes a "finite" verb, i.e., one

concerned with time. There is a subtle but real distinction, made by universal grammarians,

between different types of substantive, those that begin as nouns, and those that derive from

adjectives and adverbs but are used as nouns.

The basic categories are comprehensive and durable. But they operate not merely on the

word level. They also explain the higher levels of syntax. The parts of speech explain essentially

all of the higher level sentence structure possibilities. Every phrase and every dependent clause

functions either as an adjective, and adverb, or a noun. In fact, it soon pays to stop calling it a

- 24 -

noun clause, and just admit that it is a kind of noun that happens to occupy a whole cluster of

words. Emphasizing the functional unity of such segments will help students to become aware of

the structural solidity that goes on at these higher levels; these higher level word clusters are

units in the strict sense of the word.

These functions apply not only on the level of the single word but also comprise the role

of every the phrase and dependent clause. Finally, let us note that the only remaining aspect of

the sentence, i.e., the independent clause itself, is in fact a product of the these parts in

combination. We can I think convincingly conclude that all of sentence structure is comprised

within the chart of the parts of speech. And if this chart explains all of sentence structure, does it

not also both demystify and deepen grammar as a subject of study, and in fact restore its status as

a theory of rational thought and language. If we are certain that this structure is at the root of

language, this may give us an insight into what students will respond to because it is in their

linguistic nature.

This subject, I would propose, is sentence structure. If we teach sentence diagramming,

we will be drawing upon and sharpening this innate analytical capacity. This is particularly true

for sentence diagramming that requires the student to indicate the Part of Speech function of

each unit. We can dispense with the word level right away, and deliberately inculcate the larger

phrase and clause units and connections. Composing the individual sentence is a skill equivalent

to fundamental reasoning; it is an innate logical faculty that we are allowing to fester untrained

when we do not teach traditional grammar. The vital point is conceiving of the higher word

groupings as single, closed entities that interconnect.

Modern attacks on linguistic truth focus on the arbitrary nature of the sign, but they

ignore the objective nature of the underlying categories. Like the scholastics that they essentially

- 25 -

were, the universal grammarians use reason alone to derive an 'a priori' set of fundamental

functions. But the Eighteenth Century also saw the end of scholastic reasoning, with the advent

of empiricism. We are now in the thick of the experimental epoch. The opponents of grammar

use the experimental method, rather than the method of pure reason. They assail us with oddly

construed experimental studies to show that teaching grammar doesn't work. However, we know

that it must work. Being pre-Enlightenment in the good sense, we can argue for the 'a priori' role

of the part of speech functions. In turn we can argue, without construing some classroom

experiment, that sentence structure analysis has fundamental educational value.

In order to become aware of sentence structure, students must see that the functions

remain stable from the word, to the phrase, to the clause level. It is worthwhile to begin ignoring

and subsuming the word level as early as possible, to enhance the view of the larger structures.

Students must see that the entire phrase or clause group, working as a unit, moves position intact

and performs its function as a whole entity. We may define the phrase and the dependent clause

as "a group of words unified by performing a single part of speech function." With the number of

functions so limited, we can identify exactly four graphic indicators that are capable of a diagram

analysis for any sentence in English. They include capitalizing the independent clause, square

bracketing the adjective, and round bracketing the adverb. These diagrams will reflect the parts

of speech logic behind the larger elements of sentence structure:

Parsing Analysis Examples

Lincoln:

THE YEAR <---[that is drawing <---(toward its close)] HAS BEEN FILLED <---(with

the blessings <---[of fruitful fields and healthful skies. ] )

- 26 -

Students:

THE EVENING <---[that is drawing <---(toward its close)] HAS BEEN FILLED <---

(with the aura <---[of elegant music and graceful conversation. ] )

THE SOCIAL CIRCLE <---[which had been created <---(through much labour)] WAS

INHABITED <---(with the delights <---[of witty and loving companionship. ] )

THE VALUES <---[ that Jane Austen expresses <---(in this novel)] ARE DESCRIBED

<---(through the actions <---[of the characters and events. ] )

THE WOMAN <---[who is pleasing <---(in manner)] IS CONSIDERED

ACCOMPLISHED <---(by most people <---[in culture and society. ] )

***

The above sentences are parsed on the level of clause and phrase, but not on the level of the

individual word. The first level of syntax is the lexeme. The “lex-” (means “word”) “-eme”

(means “smallest unit of”) is the level of the individual word. At this level the only information

available to grammatical analysis is the dictionary definition of the individual word. There is no

information available as to any relationships or connections between one word and another. We

do not know which of the many senses or usages of the words are relevant; we don’t distinguish

among them. From the point of view of analysis, the words of a text are no better than a list of

random unrelated words.

The second level of syntax is called the syntactical level. This level comes into play

whenever one word is related to another according to a grammatical function. At this level,

words are parts of speech: “adverbs,” “articles,” “nouns,” “verbs” and “adjectives” and so on.

Words can be identified as they link to other words.

When these linkages between words develop a certain complexity, they evolve into

- 27 -

syntactical structures. The important thing to note is that the same part of speech functions that

connect these words are also the same functions that occur in syntax as well. When this happens,

the result is our comfortable grammar terminology: noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase

and adverb phrase. These entities arise whenever a cluster of words has in its totality the function

of one word, for example a modifying phrase that describes a noun or a verb. It may be worth

looking at an example of a modifying phrase.

In this sentence,

“The dog in the window costs ten bucks,”

the phrase “in the window” serves to indicate which particular dog among an assortment of dogs

I am referring to. Saying “the yellow” dog, “the furry” dog, and the dog “that is sleeping” or

“that may bark,” are all ways of modifying the dog and also of distinguishing this dog from all

other dogs. There are at least three principled or logical reasons for viewing these phrase units as

exerting a tremendous amount of inward attraction or unity:

1) they function together

2) they come and go together

3) they move around together

Something must be keeping these word clusters closely intact, some kind of invisible glue called

syntax. At all times, the three or four words in a modifying phrase will retain their inner linkages

toward one another.

They function together: there is no adjective for “dog” in the phrase “in the window;”

and yet, the dog in question is being described or modified. The only location upon which to fix

this modification, it turns out, is upon the whole phrase, taken as a whole unit or segment of

language. Only the phrase as a whole performs this modification. Thus the words are bound

- 28 -

together in a phrase by virtue of the single function they all play in the syntax of the phrase as a

whole.

They come and go together: when I revise a given sentence, I might add or delete a

modifying phrase. However, I would never add just part or take away just part of a modifying

phrase. If I did so, the phrase fragment left over would be unintelligible. The fact that it cannot

be taken apart also shows that the phrase is a closed unit.

They move around together: these phrases are moved around together when the speaker

or author rearranges the modifying phrases without disassembling them. The whole phrase, as a

single unit, must be moved as one.

These, therefore, are three fundamental Universal Grammar concepts, that of

government, that of part of speech function, and that of levels of grammar that are sealed off

from one another. These concepts, in turn, derive from parts of Scholastic philosophy ultimately

derive from Aristotle and Aristotelianism, and originate in philosophical concepts including:

“Subject”: sub-ject: the noun which performs the action of the verb

“Predicate”: pre-dictate: “that which is said”: a verb plus its complement

Predicate: verb plus complement

Complement is formed of adverb, or (article) noun

Grammatical object: a noun governed by some other word

We both “sub” and “ob” the same -ject, so what are sub and ob?

Indirect object, Direct object: these are tied to functions of the verb; some verbs require

them to complete their fundamental meaning

The Parts of Speech are viewed in Universal Grammar as functions that language

performs. What is it to say that the noun, for example, is a function of grammar? This is to say

- 29 -

that a noun word in a sentence does things that are particular to nouns. These things that nouns

do, these functions, include “take a verb,” “take an adjective,” “follow a determiner,” and so on.

Any word that does these things is a noun. Furthermore, every type of word can be defined by its

functions in similar ways to this.

This analysis would suggest that there are three underlying parts of speech: substances,

attributes and connectives. Attributes are of two orders, primary (consisting of verbs and

adjectives) and secondary (consisting of the words which modify verbs and adjectives, namely

adverbs).

When early linguists, the alchemical linguists, studied and wrote on the subject of

grammar, they were not studying or composing a list of “do’s and don’t’s” for “good grammar.”

This was a time when grammar was “glamour” and words could be magic spells.

What the early linguists were doing was encountering language in a phenomenological

space. What they were attempting to uncover was the underlying, systematic principles that were

operating below the surface of language. Grammar was the search in language for a set of

principles that form and unite words into all of the structures and permutations of utterances.

Grammar was therefore an analysis and theory of the complex operations of language. It

proceeded as any other science: by observation, comparison, hypothesis, and, especially during

the philological era of English grammar (1860 to 1910), massive quantities of meticulous data.

Early grammar was a rational study par excellence, one of the core Trivium of Liberal

Arts — Logic, Rhetoric and Grammar — a subject which demanded of each student to look at

language rationally, and to engage in the arguments over the best ways of understanding and

explaining the structures of this profound phenomenon.

Grammar is not a rule book that the Creator gave us when S/He gave us language. Rather,

- 30 -

grammar is a response, a rational response to our encounter with language. Rather, grammarians

take language as a set of phenomena which operate according to regular patterns. They explain

those patterns the same way as we explain patterns in any other science besides grammar: they

devise a set of categories and operations that best seems to account for the phenomena. But there

may be alternative ways of looking at those categories and operations. They are not set in stone.

They derive from an analysis of what is going on in real language. If one grammarian and

another disagree on how best to explain a language structure, they dispute about it, the same way

that scientists in all disciplines dispute. Grammarians are scientists examining language the way

another scientist examines some dimension of the physical world. Grammarians impose

interpretations, they stamp a structure on the language that they find operating in the real world.

Grammar is thus an investigative science, and all students of grammar are required to look at

what they see and devise ways to understand those things. Certain of those ways have gained

credibility and consensus over the centuries, but they did not start out that way. And there are

still plenty of expressions in real language that students of grammar must figure out and

assimilate into their more global understanding of language.

- 31 -

- 32 -

Aristotle, from On Categories

Substance, in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that

which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the

individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called

substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also

those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is

included in the species 'man', and the genus to which the species belongs is

'animal'; these, therefore-that is to say, the species 'man' and the genus 'animal,-

are termed secondary substances.

It is plain from what has been said that both the name and the definition of

the predicate must be predicable of the subject. For instance, 'man' is predicted

of the individual man. Now in this case the name of the species ‘man' is applied

to the individual, for we use the term 'man' in describing the individual; and the

definition of 'man' will also be predicated of the individual man, for the individual

man is both man and animal. Thus, both the name and the definition of the

species are predicable of the individual.

With regard, on the other hand, to those things which are present in a

subject, it is generally the case that neither their name nor their definition is

predicable of that in which they are present. Though, however, the definition is

never predicable, there is nothing in certain cases to prevent the name being

used. For instance, 'white' being present in a body is predicated of that in which it

is present, for a body is called white: the definition, however, of the colour ‘white'

is never predicable of the body.

- 33 -

Everything except primary substances is either predicable of a primary

substance or present in a primary substance. This becomes evident by reference

to particular instances which occur. 'Animal' is predicated of the species 'man',

therefore of the individual man, for if there were no individual man of whom it

could be predicated, it could not be predicated of the species 'man' at all. Again,

colour is present in body, therefore in individual bodies, for if there were no

individual body in which it was present, it could not be present in body at all.

Thus everything except primary substances is either predicated of primary

substances, or is present in them, and if these last did not exist, it would be

impossible for anything else to exist.

Of secondary substances, the species is more truly substance than the

genus, being more nearly related to primary substance. For if anyone should

render an account of what a primary substance is, he would render a more

instructive account, and one more proper to the subject, by stating the species

than by stating the genus. Thus, he would give a more instructive account of an

individual man by stating that he was man than by stating that he was animal, for

the former description is peculiar to the individual in a greater degree, while the

latter is too general. Again, the man who gives an account of the nature of an

individual tree will give a more instructive account by mentioning the species

'tree' than by mentioning the genus 'plant'.

Moreover, primary substances are most properly called substances in

virtue of the fact that they are the entities which underlie everything else, and that

everything else is either predicated of them or present in them. Now the same

- 34 -

relation which subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists

also between the species and the genus: for the species is to the genus as

subject is to predicate, since the genus is predicated of the species, whereas the

species cannot be predicated of the genus. Thus we have a second ground for

asserting that the species is more truly substance than the genus.

Of species themselves, except in the case of such as are genera, no one

is more truly substance than another. We should not give a more appropriate

account of the individual man by stating the species to which he belonged, than

we should of an individual horse by adopting the same method of definition. In

the same way, of primary substances, no one is more truly substance than

another; an individual man is not more truly substance than an individual ox.

It is, then, with good reason that of all that remains, when we exclude

primary substances, we concede to species and genera alone the name

'secondary substance', for these alone of all the predicates convey a knowledge

of primary substance. For it is by stating the species or the genus that we

appropriately define any individual man; and we shall make our definition more

exact by stating the former than by stating the latter. All other things that we

state, such as that he is white, that he runs, and so on, are irrelevant to the

definition.

Thus it is just that these alone, apart from primary substances, should be

called substances.

Further, primary substances are most properly so called, because they

underlie and are the subjects of everything else. Now the same relation that

- 35 -

subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between

the species and the genus to which the primary substance belongs, on the one

hand, and every attribute which is not included within these, on the other. For

these are the subjects of all such. If we call an individual man 'skilled in

grammar', the predicate is applicable also to the species and to the genus to

which he belongs. This law holds good in all cases.

It is a common characteristic of all substance that it is never present in a

subject. For primary substance is neither present in a subject nor predicated of a

subject; while, with regard to secondary substances, it is clear from the following

arguments (apart from others) that they are not present in a subject. For 'man' is

predicated of the individual man, but is not present in any subject: for manhood is

not present in the individual man. In the same way, 'animal' is also predicated of

the individual man, but is not present in him.

Again, when a thing is present in a subject, though the name may quite

well be applied to that in which it is present, the definition cannot be applied. Yet

of secondary substances, not only the name, but also the definition, applies to

the subject: we should use both the definition of the species and that of the

genus with reference to the individual man. Thus substance cannot be present in

a subject.

Yet this is not peculiar to substance, for it is also the case that differentiae

cannot be present in subjects. The characteristics 'terrestrial' and 'two-footed' are

predicated of the species 'man', but not present in it. For they are not in man.

Moreover, the definition of the differentia may be predicated of that of which the

- 36 -

differentia itself is predicated. For instance, if the characteristic 'terrestrial' is

predicated of the species 'man', the definition also of that characteristic may be

used to form the predicate of the species 'man': for 'man' is terrestrial.

The fact that the parts of substances appear to be present in the whole, as

in a subject, should not make us apprehensive lest we should have to admit that

such parts are not substances: for in explaining the phrase 'being present in a

subject', we stated' that we meant 'otherwise than as parts in a whole'.

It is the mark of substances and of differentiae that, in all propositions of

which they form the predicate, they are predicated univocally. For all such

propositions have for their subject either the individual or the species. It is true

that, inasmuch as primary substance is not predicable of anything, it can never

form the predicate of any proposition. But of secondary substances, the species

is predicated of the individual, the genus both of the species and of the individual.

Similarly the differentiae are predicated of the species and of the

individuals. Moreover, the definition of the species and that of the genus are

applicable to the primary substance, and that of the genus to the species. For all

that is predicated of the predicate will be predicated also of the subject. Similarly,

the definition of the differentiae will be applicable to the species and to the

individuals. But it was stated above that the word 'univocal' was applied to those

things which had both name and definition in common. It is, therefore,

established that in every proposition, of which either substance or a differentia

forms the predicate, these are predicated univocally.

All substance appears to signify that which is individual. In the case of

- 37 -

primary substance this is indisputably true, for the thing is a unit. In the case of

secondary substances, when we speak, for instance, of 'man' or 'animal', our

form of speech gives the impression that we are here also indicating that which is

individual, but the impression is not strictly true; for a secondary substance is not

an individual, but a class with a certain qualification; for it is not one and single as

a primary substance is; the words 'man', 'animal', are predicable of more than

one subject.

Yet species and genus do not merely indicate quality, like the term 'white';

'white' indicates quality and nothing further, but species and genus determine the

quality with reference to a substance: they signify substance qualitatively

differentiated. The determinate qualification covers a larger field in the case of

the genus that in that of the species: he who uses the word 'animal' is herein

using a word of wider extension than he who uses the word 'man'.

Another mark of substance is that it has no contrary. What could be the

contrary of any primary substance, such as the individual man or animal? It has

none. Nor can the species or the genus have a contrary. Yet this characteristic is

not peculiar to substance, but is true of many other things, such as quantity.

There is nothing that forms the contrary of 'two cubits long' or of 'three cubits

long', or of 'ten', or of any such term. A man may contend that 'much' is the

contrary of 'little', or 'great' of 'small', but of definite quantitative terms no contrary

exists.

Substance, again, does not appear to admit of variation of degree. I do not

mean by this that one substance cannot be more or less truly substance than

- 38 -

another, for it has already been stated' that this is the case; but that no single

substance admits of varying degrees within itself. For instance, one particular

substance, 'man', cannot be more or less man either than himself at some other

time or than some other man. One man cannot be more man than another, as

that which is white may be more or less white than some other white object, or as

that which is beautiful may be more or less beautiful than some other beautiful

object. The same quality, moreover, is said to subsist in a thing in varying

degrees at different times. A body, being white, is said to be whiter at one time

than it was before, or, being warm, is said to be warmer or less warm than at

some other time. But substance is not said to be more or less that which it is: a

man is not more truly a man at one time than he was before, nor is anything, if it

is substance, more or less what it is. Substance, then, does not admit of variation

of degree.

The most distinctive mark of substance appears to be that, while

remaining numerically one and the same, it is capable of admitting contrary

qualities. From among things other than substance, we should find ourselves

unable to bring forward any which possessed this mark. Thus, one and the same

colour cannot be white and black. Nor can the same one action be good and bad:

this law holds good with everything that is not substance. But one and the

selfsame substance, while retaining its identity, is yet capable of admitting

contrary qualities. The same individual person is at one time white, at another

black, at one time warm, at another cold, at one time good, at another bad. This

capacity is found nowhere else, though it might be maintained that a statement or

- 39 -

opinion was an exception to the rule. The same statement, it is agreed, can be

both true and false. For if the statement 'he is sitting' is true, yet, when the person

in question has risen, the same statement will be false. The same applies to

opinions. For if anyone thinks truly that a person is sitting, yet, when that person

has risen, this same opinion, if still held, will be false. Yet although this exception

may be allowed, there is, nevertheless, a difference in the manner in which the

thing takes place. It is by themselves changing that substances admit contrary

qualities. It is thus that that which was hot becomes cold, for it has entered into a

different state. Similarly that which was white becomes black, and that which was

bad good, by a process of change; and in the same way in all other cases it is by

changing that substances are capable of admitting contrary qualities. But

statements and opinions themselves remain unaltered in all respects: it is by the

alteration in the facts of the case that the contrary quality comes to be theirs. The

statement 'he is sitting' remains unaltered, but it is at one time true, at another

false, according to circumstances. What has been said of statements applies

also to opinions. Thus, in respect of the manner in which the thing takes place, it

is the peculiar mark of substance that it should be capable of admitting contrary

qualities; for it is by itself changing that it does so.

If, then, a man should make this exception and contend that statements

and opinions are capable of admitting contrary qualities, his contention is

unsound. For statements and opinions are said to have this capacity, not

because they themselves undergo modification, but because this modification

occurs in the case of something else. The truth or falsity of a statement depends

- 40 -

on facts, and not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting

contrary qualities. In short, there is nothing which can alter the nature of

statements and opinions.

As, then, no change takes place in themselves, these cannot be said to be

capable of admitting contrary qualities.

But it is by reason of the modification which takes place within the

substance itself that a substance is said to be capable of admitting contrary

qualities; for a substance admits within itself either disease or health, whiteness

or blackness. It is in this sense that it is said to be capable of admitting contrary

qualities.

To sum up, it is a distinctive mark of substance, that, while remaining

numerically one and the same, it is capable of admitting contrary qualities, the

modification taking place through a change in the substance itself.

Let these remarks suffice on the subject of substance.

- 41 -

The Roots of Rationalist Grammar

- 42 -

What makes universal grammar an explanatory system, and not in fact a "loose taxonomy," is the

hierarchy identified among the parts of speech. The categories are not merely a list, but a set of

levels. One important universal grammar observation is the decision to categorize the verb and

the adjective as versions of one major function. Both the adjective and the verb can be seen as

essentially noun modifiers:

In examining the different attributes of substances, we readily perceive that some of them

have their essence in motion; such are, "to walk," "to fly," "to strike," "to live," &c.

Others have it in the privation of motion; as, "to stop," to rest," "to cease," "to die," &c.

And others have it in subjects that have nothing to do with either motion or its privation;

such are the attributes of "great" and "little," "wise" and "foolish," "white" and "black,"

and, in a word, the several "quantities" and "qualities" of all things. This therefore

furnishes a natural division of attributives of this order; and grammarians have called all

those, whose essence consists in motion or its privation, VERBS; and all the others have

been called ADJECTIVES; each of which we shall consider separately.

Verbs are all those principal words which denote "attributes," whose essence

consists in motion, or energies, (for we choose to make use of this last term, as it implies

the exertions of the mind as well as those of the body), or their privation. This order of

attributives differs from the other called "adjectives;" not only in the particular above-

mentioned, but also because adjectives denote only qualities or quantities, which do not

admit of any change of state; whereas the verbal attributives may be considered as in

several different states, and therefore admit of several variations in the term employed to

express these. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771:734)

While they both essentially modify the noun, the adjective and the verb are clearly separate

- 43 -

categories because of the extra elements that apply only to the verb, i.e., its use of tense, aspect,

and mood, and especially its ability to perform the act of assertion itself. There is an interesting

gradual scale in the following observation:

The Adjective denotes a simple quality, as brave, cruel, good swift, round, square. The

Participle denotes a quality, together with a certain modification of time; as . . . loving,

which relates to time present . . . [and] loved, which alludes to time past . . . . The Verb is

still more complex than the participle. It not only expresses an attribute, and refers that

attribute to time . . . but it also comprehends an assertion; so that it may form, when

joined to a noun, a complete sentence, or proposition. (Beattie, 348)

Reasoning that the verb and the adjective belong together as attributes, the Universal Grammar

schema provides a strong and clear place for the adverb. Being the modifier both of the verb and

adjective, the adverb is a modifier of a modifier, or what they designate as an attribute of an

attribute, or, a second order attribute.

***

One attack on the validity of this schema comes with the observation of functional shift. Some

have used the observation that a given word, phrase or clause may shift to different Part of

Speech functions as a basis for casting doubt on the stability of language and hence of meaning.

Of course, it does not take such persons long to use this as a justification for casting doubt on

everything. It is true that with frightening ease a given word can be a noun, a verb, and then an

adjective; even whole phrases and clauses may take on and change these functions. Tell students

that the word "mountain" is an adjective, or that "try" is a noun, and you will stun then

momentarily. Infinite similar demonstrations are available. The same prepositional phrase may

function as an adjective or as an adverb; a clause may be a sentence one minute, and a noun the

- 44 -

next.

Functional shift makes it look like there is no system to English at all; that is, until we

notice that some things never change: no matter how slippery the individual words, phrases, or

clauses, the SET OF FUNCTIONS that they perform never changes. There is a little mnemonic

that students may find handy: "OTFAS: Only The Functions Are Stable." These functions, the

parts of speech, remain a comprehensive explanation of the system of English. What fulfills each

function may change, but the functions are clearly limited to the six parts of speech. To the

universal grammarians, these parts are unchanging and complete.

One observation on functional shift illustrates two important phrase types, the "key word"

phrase versus the "whole function" phrase. In a key word phrase, the unit is produced because all

of the words modify a central word; for example, a noun along with its modifiers gives a noun

phrase. But whole function phrases are the ones that do not contain a word of the given parts of

speech type. For example, the phrase "through the door" may act as an adverb, even though it

contains no adverbs in itself. With the whole function phrase, it is the fact of performing one Part

of Speech function that creates its unity. The verb phrase expresses its peculiar importance when

viewed in these terms. Note that the verb phrase is always a key word phrase; it cannot be

created by a collection of words that is not centered upon the main verb. Noun, adjective, and

adverb phrases can all be created in this way, but not the special quality of the verb, the

energizing act of assertion.

The basic parts of speech categories are comprehensive and durable. But they operate not

merely on the word level. They also explain the higher levels of syntax. The parts of speech

explain essentially all of the higher level sentence structure possibilities. Every phrase and every

dependent clause functions either as an adjective, and adverb, or a noun. In fact, it soon pays to

- 45 -

stop calling it a noun clause, and just admit that it is a noun. Emphasizing this functional unity

will help students to become aware of the structural solidity that goes on at these higher levels;

these higher level word clusters are units in the strict sense of the word.

Reasoning that the verb and the adjective belong together as attributes, universal

grammarians long ago refuted the still persistent framework which places the noun and

verb as equally fundamental. This framework cannot then explain why we have an adverb

but not an "adnoun." It produces a clearly inefficient diagram. There is something wrong

with the role given to adverbs in this system:

On the other hand, the Universal Grammar schema provides a strong and clear place for

the adverb. Being the modifier both of the verb and adjective, the adverb is a modifier of a

modifier, or what they refer to as a second order attribute:

- 46 -

We can I think convincingly conclude that all of sentence structure is comprised within the

above chart of the parts of speech. And if this chart explains all of sentence structure, does it not

also both demystify and deepen grammar as a subject of study, and in fact restore its status as a

theory of rational thought and language.

- 47 -

Accidence

- 48 -

The Noun Substantive

As long as language remains at the center of a Twenty-first Century economy, the study

of language in any form is bound to place one in a position of better strength. —Robert

Einarsson, a bit of advice

- 49 -

Changes to the form of the noun are called declensions. These changes include pluralization and

the possessive case. Historically, the English language had more declensions than it currently

maintains for the noun. Early English was an inflected language, which means that the different

grammatical situations of the noun were something that would show up in the forms of the noun.

There was a special ending for the noun when it was performing the subject function in a clause,

and a different ending for when it was performing the object function, or the indirect object, or

the possessive.

Pluralization in English is accomplished in a number of ways, from adding the -s (which

spells the /z/ consonant) to altering the internal vowels of the word:

queen-s

box-es

hal-ves

li-ves

ox-en

childr-en

man-men

Historically, Old English nouns were most commonly pluralized by the vowel change and the -

en ending. However, with the advent of Modern English plurals were regularized rigorously into

the -s form, and the other plural forms are essentially fossils of an older English language, which

still echoes within and underlies the Modern English language. This paleolo-English language

echoes somewhere between the Dark Ages and Middle Earth.

Some nouns appear only in the singular form:

gold silver brass iron lead wealth pomp grandeur pride sloth

- 50 -

avarice contentment anger cheerfulness melancholy laughter

Some appear only as plurals:

riches ethics mathematics optics hydraulics politics bellows pants breeches

trousers scissors billiards clothes arms amends measles

And in some, the singular and plural forms are the same: sheep deer swine carp pike fish

Gender is now a very minimal in English nouns, limited to actual instances of gender or

sex designations, rather than the wide ranging assignation of male, female or neuter gender to

every noun in the language. English retains a few personified genders, such as a ship, the sun,

and a country occasionally being identified by sex. There are a number of feminine forms, such

as -ess, -rix and -ine: governness, executrix, heroine. Some animal genders show up in English

nouns, as in bull-cow, cock-hen, she-goat, she-wolf, and in the female forms of names such as

Adrian-Adriana, George-Georgiana, and Joseph-Josephine.

***

It is possible to categorize nouns in a number of different ways, depending on the things which

they designate:

Common Nouns: man, mountain, state, ocean, country, building, cat airline

Proper Nouns: Walt Disney, Mount Kilimanjaro, Minnesota, Atlantic Ocean, Australia,

Empire State Building, Fluffy, American Airlines

Abstract Nouns: love, wealth, happiness, pride, fear, religion, belief, history,

communication

Concrete Nouns: house, ocean, Uncle Mike, bird, photograph, banana, eyes, light, sun,

dog, suitcase, flowers

Countable Nouns: bed, cat, movie, train, country, book, phone, match, speaker, clock,

- 51 -

pen, David, violin

Uncountable Nouns: milk, rice, snow, rain, water, food, music

Compound Nouns: tablecloth, eyeglasses, New York, photography, daughter-in-law,

pigtails, sunlight, snowflake

Collective Nouns: bunch, audience, flock, team, group, family, band, village

- 52 -

An ode on English Plurals

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,

But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.

One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,

Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,

Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,

Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,

And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,

Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,

Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,

And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,

But though we say mother, we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,

But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;

neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

English muffins weren't invented in England .

We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,

we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,

and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,

grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.

If you have a bunch of odds and ends and

get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.

We have noses that run and feet that smell.

We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.

And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,

while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the lunacy of a language

in which your house can burn up as it burns down,

in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and

in which an alarm goes off by going on.

And in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?

- 53 -

Pronouns:

Personal

declined for gender and person

Possessive

declined for person

Relative

who and whom

Demonstrative

declined for proximity

Interrogative

who and whom

Reflexive

declined for person

- 54 -

The Attributes of Substance

According to Universal Grammar principles, words may be divided into two all-inclusive

categories: words substantive, and words connective. Words substantive are all of the content-

bearing words, and there are four types of them in number: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

Attribution carries one specific sub-category, which is called the adverb, and which is designated

as the "attribute of an attribute." The adverb modifies either an adjective, a verb, or another

adverb; hence, it is the part of speech that gives attributes to words which are already classified

as attributive. Furthermore, attributes do not come only in the form of single words; phrases and

clauses also act as modifiers. The attribution of a core noun is seen as the entire purpose and

structure of the predicate of a sentence, whether these attributes are words, phrases, or clauses

acting as adjectives or adverbs.

Verbs are all those principal words which denote attributes whose essence consists in

motion or energies(for we choose to make use of this last term, as it implies the exertions

of the mind as well as those of the body), or their privation. This order of attributives

differs from the other called adjectives; not only in the particular above-mentioned, but

also because adjectives denote only qualities or quantities, which do not admit of any

change of state; whereas the verbal attributives may be considered as in several different

states, and therefore admit of several variations in the term employed to express these.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771:734)

- 55 -

Connective words are two in number: prepositions and conjunctions. This is the Universal

Grammar point of view with reference to the Parts of Speech. These six parts of speech account

for every word and every possible word. Furthermore, these same functions also operate at the

higher levels of syntax, above and beyond the simple lexical level. In other words, there are noun

words, as well as noun phrases, as well as noun clauses; and there are adjective and adverb

words, and phrases, and also clauses: so that within the total organization of the sentence the

functions of the Parts of Speech are operating on all levels of grammar and syntax. Universal

Grammarians delighted in the symmetry and interconnection of such a system at the heart of

language.

Other than substance and the various attributes, only the two connective categories

remain, the conjunction and the preposition. This view narrows the parts of speech to three

essential elements: substance, attribute, and connectives (Aristotle); or, to six basic functions:

noun, verb, adjective, adverb, conjunction, and preposition. The remaining parts of speech are

merely sub-categories of these six: the articles, determiners, possessives, participles, infinitives,

gerunds, and so on. These multifarious particles of speech resolve into the six cardinal parts of

speech.

- 56 -

Forms of the Verb

“Tense” is the relation between the time of the act spoken of, and the time of the speaking

of it. -Aristotle

- 57 -

In the Universal Grammar view of verbs, the central philosophical idea is “assertion.”

Assertion is the essence of what it means to be a verb.

It goes like this:

1) first, there is the adjective, which simply states an attribute

2) then there are participles, which state an attribute plus a reference to time past

or time present

3) finally, there are verbs, which state both of the above, plus bring to bear an

assertion on the part of the speaker.

Assertion is the act of linking the verb to its noun, and this is the key gesture on the part of the

speaker that creates what is known as a clause, the joining of some substance or subject to a

predicate. This assertion creates an utterance, and anything falling short of this is less than a full

utterance, less than a grammatical sentence.

Students sometimes object to the idea that the word “is” is a verb. They observe that “is”

or “to be” is not performing any kind of action.

Truly they are right; however, there are two ways in which the Universal Grammarians

saw the word “to be” as a verb specifically. Both of these ways apply to all verbs, but they apply

most supremely to the verb “to be.”

One of these ways is that the verb carries an “energy” into the picture. The verbs are the

“energizers” that activate language and make the utterances about real things.

The second way is, again, assertion. The verb “to be” is obviously the ultimate assertion,

namely that the thing “is;” an assertion that it exists. Thus again assertion is seen to be at the root

of the verb.

In addition to assertion, verbs maintain the following dimensions:

- 58 -

Tense

Aspect

Voice

Mood/Mode

The form of the verb changes in order to signal any of the above functions.

***

A finite verb is one said to be actually asserted as taking place. These forms are called “finite”

because the verb is located in a specific time frame. Verbs which are asserted in actuality are

always asserted in the past, the present, the future, the past perfect, the progressive or the perfect-

progressive. These all indicate finite locations in time. A verb is asserted in one of its modalities,

such as actual, potential or wished for. In the following excerpt from The Wind in the Willows,

the finite verbs are in bold. Looking over this excerpt a second time, it will be apparent that there

are many verb-like words in this passage that have not been bolded. These are various

incarnations of the non-finite verb. The classic case of the non-finite verb is, as the name so

clearly demonstrates, the “infinitive” verb. The infinitive verb is the famous case of verb analysis

that is so familiar to students of a second language. It is absolutely necessary to have a good

stock of infinitive verbs in one’s vocabulary, and the ability to conjugate these verbs

systematically into their innumerable forms is the essence of using the language. The one thing

lacking is assertion. Verbs which are not located in time are therefore called “infinitives.” The

infinitive form of the English verb is the “to-form.” It is called “the name of the verb” or

paradoxically “the noun of the verb” by Universal Grammarians.

- 59 -

from “Of Universal Grammar,” The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1771

From the intimate connection that takes place between the energy, the energizer,

the assertion, and time, these several accessories have been considered as

essential parts of the verb; and therefore some grammarians have defined a verb

to be "A word denoting an energy, with time, and an assertion." But if we were

thus to confound things with those which may necessarily accompany them, we

could never arrive at a clear perception of any subject whatever. But not to enter

into the arguments that might be produced to shew that impropriety of this

definition, we shall only observe, that by the universal acknowledgment of all

grammarians this cannot be just. For they unanimously agree, that the "infinitive

mode" is not only "a part" of every verb, but the "most essential part;" as it forms

the root from which all the other parts are derived. But as this mode neither

denotes either time or an assertion, it is evident that these, even by their own

acknowledgment, can be at best but accessories, and not essential parts of the

verb.

From these arguments, therefore, we must conclude, that the verb itself

admits of no other variations but those already taken notice of; -- that before it

can produce any active effect in language, like every other attribute, it must be

united to some proper energizer; -- that this union in language can never be

effected but by means of an exertion of the vital powers of the speaker, whereby

he either publishes his perception thereof, or his will that it should be; -- and that

this union may be represented as taking place at all the different times that can

be assigned. These, therefore, are each of them necessary accompaniments of a

- 60 -

verb, but each of them separate and distinct in their own nature, not only from

this verb, but from one another; and it becomes an essential part of the syntax of

every language, to consider the various ways in which these can be combined

and affect one another. -- Nay, so intimate has this connection been thought to

be by some, that the contrivers of certain languages have arranged them under

particular classes, for the sake of distinctness and precision. -- The form which a

verb assumed, when thus varied in all the ways that their particular language

would admit of, was called the CONJUGATION of the verb; the several parts of

which may be understood from the following sketch.

***

- 61 -

Traits of the Verb: Assertion and Modes

In the natural world, no attribute can possibly exist without a substance to which

it belongs, nor any substance without possessing certain attributes. So

necessary and intimate is the connection between these, that it is as impossible

to separate them, as to create or annihilate the several substances that possess

these attributes. But although we are thus circumscribed as to our bodily powers,

the mind admits not of such limitation; but can with the utmost facility separate

every quality from every object whatever, and consider them apart; as, "colour"

without "superficies," "superficies" without "solidity," or "weight" without "matter,"

&c. and, when thus separated, apply them to what objects, and in what manner,

it pleases. In this manner the mind abstracts those attributes which denote

"motions" or "energies" from their "agents" or "energizer," in the same way as it

abstracts "qualities" from their "substances." And it is these energies thus

abstracted, which form that species of words called "verbs;" in the same manner

as those attributes which denote "quantities" and "qualities" abstracted from their

necessary substances, form "adjectives." Thus, the term "to walk," denotes a

particular "energy" as considered perfectly apart from every "energizer," in the

same manner as the word "good" denotes a certain "quality" without regard to

any particular "substance."

Here we discover a most essential difference between the order of nature,

and that representation of it which man makes by means of words. For in

NATURE, every quality must at all times be united with some substance, nor can

ever be exhibited separate from it; but in LANGUAGE, every attributive, if it be

- 62 -

considered at all, must be separated from the object to which it naturally belongs.

Hence we see the reason why, in language, every "energy" and energizer, not

only "may" be considered separately, but "must" forever remain separate, unless

they be united by some other power than what is necessarily their own. For the

attribute "to write," can no more be united to "man" its proper energizer, than a

motion could commence without a cause; and till this attribute is united to its

proper energizer, it must remain in a great measure dead and inefficacious in

language. -- To communicate life and energy, therefore, to this inert attribute, it

must be united to its proper energizer; which can only be effected by the help of

an assertion of the speaker himself; which may be considered as the same with

regard to language, as life is in the natural world.

It is evident that, by the assistance of an assertion, the speaker is enabled

to write any energy to any particular energizer, and thus, without making any

change upon the attribute itself, represent a variety of changes produced upon

other bodies by its means. -- Thus, if I say, "I write," what do I more than assert

that I myself am possessed of that particular attribute denoted by the verb "to

write"? If I say, "You write," or "He writes," what do I more than assert that

another person is possessed of that particular attribute or energy? -- If I say "He

DID write," I only assert that the same attribute was possessed at another time,

by the same person, as before. Hence therefore, by the help of this assertion of

the speaker, we are enabled to join this particular attribute to many different

energizers, as well as to represent these different combinations as occurring at

many different times; so that the same attribute may thus be made to appear

- 63 -

under a great many different circumstances, and exhibit a great variety of

changes upon other objects, although itself remains unchanged; the several

variations which we perceive, only relating to the objects with which it is

combined, or the means by which that union is effected. -- In the same manner it

often happens, that any object in nature, a house for example, may appear

extremely different when viewed from different situations.

- 64 -

The word “verbal” is an adjective derived from the word “verb.” As such, it means “like or

related to a verb.” Participles are verbals because they actually contain fragments or “parts” of a

verb; infinitives are verbals because they are the form of the verb in which it is named most

abstractly. In this form it names the concept in its general form but does not assert any kind of

occurrence of the action.

- 65 -

What does a man say about infinitives and participles when he is finally given his

opportunity?

Infinitives are the Master-Governor form of the verb: each verb starts its existence as an

infinitive. Universal Grammarians have called the infinitive the “name” of the verb or

paradoxically, the Noun of the Verb. Every action that can be done; that action can also be

named: and that is the infinitive form of the action, the infinitive or naming verb.

Now, the “infinitive” is “infinitive” because it is “infinite.”

But what does “infinite” mean?

It means “without reference to time.”

It is infinite. It is eternal. It always both is not and is so.

This is the pure concept of the verb in its named form, without the element of assertion added

into the picture; the element by which a speaker or utterer of those words intends to assert some

actual instance of the action of the verb actually taking place. An instance of the verb actually

occurring.

This is the infinitive form of the verb.

- 66 -

Participles are an elusive but nearly mundane phrasal modifying system. Think of them

as enhancements to the prepositional and infinitive phrasal system. All sorts of verb fragments,

belonging to the -ing and -ed families, are being derived from verbs into other way-warding

functions, namely, adjectives and/or adverbs. This these phrase clusters occupy about 10 percent

of the grammatical space surrounding phrase modifiers, with infinitives occupying an additional

5, and prepositional phrases occupying the other 85% of phrasal modifiers. However, participial

present and past both present, along with infinities which do this too, much more variety in the

internal structure of the phrases.

Prepositional phrases appear to follow an iron-clad grammatical rule: start with each

preposition and continue to the next noun or cluster of nouns. The grammarian can sit down with

any page of English writing and locate literally dozens and dozens of examples which fit exactly

into that rule. I have yet to encounter any really puzzling or opposing examples to this rule, but

hopefully when this textbook on grammar becomes famous I will be informed by fellow

grammarians of any number of such awesome instances.

However, if I can swing my grammatical notoriety into political power, then all bets are

off. ***

- 67 -

Those verbs which are deemed irregular, and relegated to the outskirts of the English language,

are in fact the remnants and fossils of the original Anglo-Saxon verb system. The norm for verbs

forming the past tense in Anglo-Saxon was a method called ablative. This is where a new

grammatical form is created by changing one of the internal vowels in a word. The transition

from present tense “bind” to past tense “bound” is called an ablative. This was the way that the

overwhelming totality of verbs in the original English language were formed.

But during the 250-year-long Norman Occupation, this dimension of the English

language was laid to ruin. Now only a few dozen stragglers and hangers-on use ablative in

forming the past tense. In order to simplify the English language for the comprehension purposes

of the Norman Overlords, the English bumpkins had to simplify their language down to a few

grunts. One part of this process was to use only the form of adding “-ed” to form the past tense,

instead of changing the internal vowels any more. This created a simpler, more blatant was of

forming the past tense, something more suited to the French. So when you call them “irregular

verbs,” please remember something of their history.

Regular Verbs:

add “-ed”

Irregular Verbs:

- 68 -

- 69 -

In the following passage of beautiful prose by Kenneth Grahame, the finite verbs have all been

italicized. Remember that finite verbs are the ones that stand connected to a noun, which is the

subject and “doer” of the action of the verb. The verb is asserted as happening, at some point in

time or potentiality, and in some modality.

In other words, finite verbs are the real verbs. They are called “finite” because they have

a distinct relationship to a specific time. And this designation distinguishes them from “infinite”

or “infinitive” verbs, which are those forms of the verb which express the concept of the verb

with no assertion as to a time of happening, for example: to go to run to fly to sing to laugh to

dance. These infinitives have been called the “names” of the verbs, paradoxically, “the noun of

the verb.”

Please study the finite verbs in this excerpt. In the second exercise, I will address your

attention to all of the verbal-type of words in this passage that fall short of being finite, but are

still derivatives from original verbs. These are called verbals, participials, gerunds, infinitives

and so on.

Finite Verbs – from The Wind in the Willows

The Mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring-cleaning his little home.

Spring was moving in the air above and in the earth below and around him, penetrating

even his dark and lowly little house with its spirit of divine discontent and longing. It was

small wonder, then, that he suddenly flung down his brush on the floor, said 'Bother!' and

'O blow!' and also 'Hang spring-cleaning!' and bolted out of the house without even

waiting to put on his coat. Something up above was calling him imperiously, and he

made for the steep little tunnel which answered in his case to the gaveled carriage-drive.

So he scraped and scratched and scrabbled and scrooged and then he scrooged again and

- 70 -

scrabbled and scratched and scraped, working busily with his little paws and muttering

to himself, 'Up we go! Up we go!' till at last, pop! his snout came out into the sunlight,

and he found himself rolling in the warm grass of a great meadow.

The sunshine struck hot on his fur, soft breezes caressed his heated brow, and

after the seclusion of the cellarage he had lived in so long the carol of happy birds fell on

his dulled hearing almost like a shout. Jumping off all his four legs at once, in the joy of

living and the delight of spring without its cleaning, he pursued his way across the

meadow till he reached the hedge on the further side.

He was bowled over in an instant by the impatient and contemptuous Mole, who

trotted along the side of the hedge chaffing the other rabbits as they peeped hurriedly

from their holes to see what the row was about. 'Onion-sauce! Onion-sauce!' he remarked

jeeringly, and was gone before they could think of a thoroughly satisfactory reply. Then

they all started grumbling at each other. 'How STUPID you are! Why didn't you tell

him——' 'Well, why didn't YOU say——' 'You might have reminded him——' and so

on, in the usual way; but, of course, it was then much too late, as is always the case.

It all seemed too good to be true. Hither and thither through the meadows he

rambled busily, along the hedgerows, across the copses, finding everywhere birds

building, flowers budding, leaves thrusting—everything happy, and progressive, and

occupied. And instead of having an uneasy conscience pricking him and whispering

'whitewash!' he somehow could only feel how jolly it was to be the only idle dog among

all these busy citizens. After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be

resting yourself, as to see all the other fellows busy working.

He thought his happiness was complete when, as he meandered aimlessly along,

- 71 -

suddenly he stood by the edge of a full-fed river. Never in his life had he seen a river

before—this sleek, sinuous, full-bodied animal, chasing and chuckling, gripping things

with a gurgle and leaving them with a laugh, to fling itself on fresh playmates that shook

themselves free, and were caught and held again. All was a-shaking and a-shivering—

glinting and gleaming and sparkling, rustling and swirling, chattering and bubbling.

The Mole was bewitched, entranced, fascinated. By the side of the river he trotted as one

trots, when very small, by the side of a man who holds one spell-bound by exciting

stories; and when he was tired at last, he sat on the bank, while the river still chattered on

to him, babbling a procession of the best stories in the world, which were sent from the

heart of the earth to be told at last to the insatiable sea.

As he sat on the grass and looked across the river, a dark hole in the bank

opposite, just above the water's edge, caught his eye, and dreamily he fell to considering

what a nice snug dwelling-place it would make for an animal who had few wants and

who was fond of a bijou riverside residence, above flood level and remote from noise and

dust. As he gazed, something bright and small seemed to twinkle down in the heart of it,

vanished, then twinkled once more like a tiny star. But it could hardly be a star in such

an unlikely situation; and it was too glittering and small for a glow-worm. Then, as he

looked, it winked at him, and so declared itself to be an eye; and a small face began

gradually to grow up round it, like a frame round a picture.

- 72 -

Here is the same text again, this time with the verbal elements underlined. Remember: verbals

are any of the word types that are made from taking fully-fledged verbs to pieces, and using

those pieces on their own in other circumstances. The verbals are participles and infinitives.

Finite Verbs with Verbals – from The Wind in the Willows

The Mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring-cleaning his little home.

Spring was moving in the air above and in the earth below and around him, penetrating

even his dark and lowly little house with its spirit of divine discontent and longing. It was

small wonder, then, that he suddenly flung down his brush on the floor, said 'Bother!' and

'O blow!' and also 'Hang spring-cleaning!' and bolted out of the house without even

waiting to put on his coat. Something up above was calling him imperiously, and he

made for the steep little tunnel which answered in his case to the gaveled carriage-drive.

So he scraped and scratched and scrabbled and scrooged and then he scrooged again and

scrabbled and scratched and scraped, working busily with his little paws and muttering

to himself, 'Up we go! Up we go!' till at last, pop! his snout came out into the sunlight,

and he found himself rolling in the warm grass of a great meadow.

The sunshine struck hot on his fur, soft breezes caressed his heated brow, and

after the seclusion of the cellarage he had lived in so long the carol of happy birds fell on

his dulled hearing almost like a shout. Jumping off all his four legs at once, in the joy of

living and the delight of spring without its cleaning, he pursued his way across the

meadow till he reached the hedge on the further side.

He was bowled over in an instant by the impatient and contemptuous Mole, who

trotted along the side of the hedge chaffing the other rabbits as they peeped hurriedly

- 73 -

from their holes to see what the row was about. 'Onion-sauce! Onion-sauce!' he remarked

jeeringly, and was gone before they could think of a thoroughly satisfactory reply. Then

they all started grumbling at each other. 'How STUPID you are! Why didn't you tell

him——' 'Well, why didn't YOU say——' 'You might have reminded him——' and so

on, in the usual way; but, of course, it was then much too late, as is always the case.

It all seemed too good to be true. Hither and thither through the meadows he

rambled busily, along the hedgerows, across the copses, finding everywhere birds

building, flowers budding, leaves thrusting—everything happy, and progressive, and

occupied. And instead of having an uneasy conscience pricking him and whispering

'whitewash!' he somehow could only feel how jolly it was to be the only idle dog among

all these busy citizens. After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be

resting yourself, as to see all the other fellows busy working.

He thought his happiness was complete when, as he meandered aimlessly along,

suddenly he stood by the edge of a full-fed river. Never in his life had he seen a river

before—this sleek, sinuous, full-bodied animal, chasing and chuckling, gripping things

with a gurgle and leaving them with a laugh, to fling itself on fresh playmates that shook

themselves free, and were caught and held again. All was a-shaking and a-shivering—

glinting and gleaming and sparkling, rustling and swirling, chattering and bubbling.

The Mole was bewitched, entranced, fascinated. By the side of the river he trotted as one

trots, when very small, by the side of a man who holds one spell-bound by exciting

stories; and when he was tired at last, he sat on the bank, while the river still chattered on

to him, babbling a procession of the best stories in the world, which were sent from the

heart of the earth to be told at last to the insatiable sea.

- 74 -

As he sat on the grass and looked across the river, a dark hole in the bank

opposite, just above the water's edge, caught his eye, and dreamily he fell to considering

what a nice snug dwelling-place it would make for an animal who had few wants and

who was fond of a bijou riverside residence, above flood level and remote from noise and

dust. As he gazed, something bright and small seemed to twinkle down in the heart of it,

vanished, then twinkled once more like a tiny star. But it could hardly be a star in such

an unlikely situation; and it was too glittering and small for a glow-worm. Then, as he

looked, it winked at him, and so declared itself to be an eye; and a small face began

gradually to grow up round it, like a frame round a picture.

- 75 -

Conjugations of the English Verb “to count”

“to count” TENSE: past present future

simple counted count will count

perfect had

counted

have/has

counted

will have

counted

ASPECT: progressive was

counting

am/is/are

counting

will be

counting

perfect-

progressive

had been

counting

have/has

been counting

will have

been counting

This chart gives 16 forms that the verb can take. With the infinitive form, there are 17 forms

altogether for the verb “to count.” Please remember that all of these can also be put into the

passive voice:

were counted, are counted, will be counted, had been counted, have been counted, will

have been counted, were being counted, are being counted, will be being counted, had

been being counted, have been being counted and will have been being counted

The actives and the passives taken together bring the number of forms of “to count” to thirty-

two. However, there’s more.

In turn, these thirty-two may all be uttered in any of the three conditional forms: can,

shall, may: can be counted, can have been being counted, etc. thirty-two times three is 96 forms

- 76 -

that this verb can transform into!

However, all of these 96 conditional forms can also occur in the past conditional: could

have been being counted, should be counted, might have been counted. So that’s another 96

forms. The grand total of the forms you can issue of the verb “count” is 96 x 2 = 196 ways that

this one verb can be transformed into another form.

196!!

And that’s for every other verb in the language.

And you and I, and every speaker of every language, process this entire system

instantaneously and effortlessly just by the act of understanding the language.

Now, two things I would point out about this, is that each and every one of these form-

change transformations has been strictly rule bound. We can write rules, that are not too

complicated, to align with all of these verb forms in perfectly regular, systematic ways.

So where is this information sitting?

I certainly don’t process this stuff consciously when I decide to pick my verb. I just open

my mouth and out it comes!

It has been pointed out by Pinker and others that language production is utterly

spontaneous in human beings (pardon the pun!). You can utter any of these forms of the verb

instantly, without thinking about it, without processing any verbal grammar consciously, when it

is needed, with absolutely no necessity for any awareness on your part of the complex system of

grammar at play.

That’s just weird.

The meaning of these aspects is as follows: “Simple” aspect refers to an incident

occurring at one specific moment in time. “Perfect” aspect comprehends an action completed and

- 77 -

finished prior to another specific time. The incidents are “perfect” in the sense that they are

complete and finished. And “Progressive” aspect refers to an action of ongoing duration.

One of the truly remarkable observations to make about the verb structure it its complex

but clock-work regularity. The tenses and aspects are governed by the most rigorous rationality

and logical patterning. And thus verbs are one of the best proofs for the observation that we as

language-bearing creatures process a vastly complex system of communication almost entirely in

the unconscious or pre-conscious faculties. There is a remarkable amount of strictly rational

brain-power being exerted on a level entirely outside of the conscious awareness of the

individual.

There are rigorous formulas governing these changes, and that apply with exact

regularity. Using these formula, we can mechanically derive each conjugation. This process

shows us something about the systematic quality of language. The extent of our unconscious

knowledge about the systems and rules of language is immense. But we normally carry around

that knowledge without any conscious awareness of it.

The formula for simple type of tense is

"verb + tense form."

The tense form is --ed for past, nothing for present, and will-- for future.

The formula for perfect type of tense is

(to have + tense form) + the past participle of the main verb.

Notice that in all of the perfect forms, the word counted doesn't change. It is only the first part of

the conjugation that changes, the part using to have. This part of the verb changes from had, to

have or has, to will have; but counted stays the same in all three conjugations. In the perfect

tense, the auxiliary verb is have and the main verb is whatever the verb is, in this case count. It

- 78 -

is the auxiliary verb that carries all of the changes in form and all of the information about tense

and time.

The formula for the progressive type of tense is

(to be + tense form) + present participle of the main verb.

The present participle is the -ing form of the verb. Whichever tense time is used, the verb count

is always in the -ing form. It is only the auxiliary that changes form according to the tense

time. Again, it is the auxiliary that carries most of the information about tense.

The formula for the perfect progressive type tense is even more complicated

[ (to have + tense form) + past participle of to be ] + present participle of the main verb.

Only the form of to have changes in this conjugation. The past participle of to be, i.e., been,

remains the same in each conjugation, as does the present participle of the main verb, in this

case, count. The use of “have” in various tenses makes it a “perfect” form, and the use of “been”

makes it a “progressive” form.

It should be noted that this formula pattern is totally systematic for the conjugation chart,

but is not so for the actual usage of the verbs in everyday language. Linguists will correctly

point out that the present form can be used to mean the future (as in "Tomorrow, we go back to

the courthouse and count the ballots again"). The actual usage of verbs even more complex than

the above chart would indicate.

It should also be noted that this chart of conjugations only scratches the surface, because

it only shows the Indicative Voice of the verb. The same chart can be written up anew for

conditional verbs like should, could, would, might and for the passive was. We are talking about

upwards of 72 different forms for each and every verb in the language, which all speakers

process by rules effortlessly, without having any awareness of the operation of the rules.

- 79 -

In addition to tense and aspect are the modes of verbs: Indicative, Potential, Interrogative

and Volitional. Verbs also come in transitive, intransitive and copula forms.

- 80 -

In addition to all of the above conjugations for tense and aspect, there are two English

verbs that are also inflected for person and gender. These conjugations are remnants or traces of

the person and gender inflections that did once characterize the English language in its original

form as an inflected Germanic language.

I was / had am / have

will be /

will have

We were / had are / have

will be /

will have

You were are will be

You were are will be

He/She was is will be

They were are Will be

- 81 -

Voices and Moods of the Verb

Aristotle in his Organon defines a verb as that part of speech which carries the notion of time or

change. The types of motions or actions expressed by verbs are called the “modes” or “moods”

of the verb, the word “mood” being the Anglo-Saxon form of “mode.” Any action may be

expressed in any of the following forms:

Indicative, you say that it is so

Imperative, you demand that it be so

Interrogative, you inquire as to it

Conditional, it may become so

Subjunctive, be it so

Potential, it could be

***

Verbs have all of the following features which we must analyze:

Encyclopedia Britannica, First Edition

With regard to MODES; as this relates solely to the "perception" or "volition" of

the speaker, it necessarily follows, that there ought to be a distinct and particular

MODE for each diversity that there can be in his manner of perceiving or willing

anything whatever, the principal of which are the following.

If we simply declare that we perceive any object, or that such a thing is or

will be, without any limitation or contingency, it forms what has been called the

DECLARATIVE or INDICATIVE MODE; as, "I write" -- Again, if we simply

represent it to be within our "power," or to depend upon our choice, it forms two

other modes, which may be called the POTENTIAL, as, "I can write": or the

- 82 -

ELECTIVE, as, "I may write" -- In the same manner, if the speaker represents

himself, or any other object, as "determined" to perform any action, or as

"compelled" to it, or as it is his "duty" to perform it; these form so many distinct

modes, which may be called the DETERMINATIVE, as, "I will write;" the

COMPULSIVE, as, "I must write;" and OBLIGATIVE, as, "I should write." But

although each of these represents the speaker as perceiving the agent under a

different light with respect to the action; yet as all of them, except the indicative,

agree in this, that however much they may represent it as the "duty" or

"inclination," &c. of the agent to perform any action with which they are

associated, yet as they are still of the nature of contingents which may never take

effect, they are frequently subjoined to any other verb; therefore the Latins have

comprehended all of these under one mode, which they have called the

SUBJUNCTIVE.

- 83 -

- 84 -

Joe IS HUNTING the horses.

HUNTING the horses became his obsession.

I am flying. Flying is fun.

Mommy, where do Participles come from?

Johnny, the participial is the detached root of a present progressive verb.

“Am flying” is a present progressive verb; if you break it apart (”participle”) and take out the

participle “flying,” you can use that participle in other places and other ways than the original

verb that it originated from. For example, you can use it as a noun, and give it a verb to govern:

Flying rocks! So the verb “am flying” has been transformed into the noun “flying.” This pattern

applies likewise to the past participle, flew, and the infinitive, to fly.

A “part”iciple is a “part” of a verb. Verbs, it is well known, come in hundreds of possible

forms, and most of these forms are created by adding an auxiliary verb to some form of the root

verb. The auxiliaries are the verbs “to be” and “to have.” When the participial form of the root

verb is detached from the auxiliaries that trail along with it, that root verbal word is said to be a

participle. Participles come in the forms of present-progressive and past.

Present participles are the “-ing” forms of root verbs. If you take the word “hunting” out

of the sentence “the man is hunting,” you can use that participle by itself in other contexts. For

instance, you can say that “hunting is my hobby.” The word hunting thus starts out as a participle

within a verb, comes detached, and plays the role of a noun elsewhere in another sentence. This

form of participle, the -ing form taken as a noun, is called a gerund.

The second major form is the past participle, which consists of the “-ed” form of the root

- 85 -

of any verb, taken as an adjective.

The past participle is identical to the past perfect form of the verb. It is not the same as

the form used in the simple past tense.

I flew. I have flown.

“Flew” is the simple past tense of the verb; “flown” is the past participle.

The past participle arises when the clause “the contract is written” is reduced to the

phrase “the written contract.” Please note that only the first of these is a clause; only the first is a

sentence. The information content of the two segments is identical. The only difference,

according to the Universal grammarians, is that when taken in the clause form, the verb also

carries with it the act of assertion. It is assertion within the verb that transforms the noun phrase

into the clause-sentence. There is also a difference between “a written contract” and “a fair

contract” in that the first adjective carries the notion of time (and is therefore a participle)

whereas the second adjective carries no bearing upon time.

The exact sequence of attributes outlined by the Universal grammarians is from adjective

to participle to verb. The adjective is an attribute pure and simple; the participle is an attribute

along with a designation of time, present or past; and the verb is an attribute, a designation of

time, and the ultimate ingredient, an assertion implicit within the verb. In the case of the verb,

the construct becomes elevated to the status of a clause and a sentence to boot.

***

The infinitive form of the verb in English is created by adding the word “to” to the base

root of any verb, producing the “to-” form: to count. In other languages the infinitive is formed

in other ways, but in English it is by adding the proposition to the front of the verb. These “to-”

forms then become the abstract designation of the verb in its most pure form: to sing. It is an

- 86 -

abstract designation of the verb, not an instance of the verb actually in action or actually asserted.

I wave is an assertion, to wave is merely an abstract concept, not asserted to be taking place in

any tense or aspect. To dance: in the infinitive, there is no information about when this action

was committed, and there is no noun or person offered as the subject or doer of that verb. The

infinitive is merely the concept of the verb, and has thus been paradoxically called “the name of

the verb” and “the noun of the verb.” The infinitive is the name of the action that that particular

verb expresses.

- 87 -

The Adjective

- 88 -

An article is a word prefixed to a noun to point out how far its signification extends; hence, it is a

type of adjective.

The English Article:

Enumerating and Designating with Uncommon Specificity

by Robert Einarsson

As described by the Eighteenth Century school of grammar known as Universal

Grammar, the article is a word type which is used to shift our attention from the general

category, to the specific individual. We go from a group of things, to a thing or the thing.

For example, if we refer to a general category of things such as “men,” we use the

noun by itself for that whole category, including all of the individuals. The noun “men”

places a large group of individuals before us. But if we wish to isolate one individual

from amongst that category, we use an article, either “a” or “the.” Thus, to point to one

specific man, we say “a man” or “the man,” rather than just “men.”

In the traditional view of grammar, the function of the article is therefore to

identify one particular individual from amongst a category; its role is to shift our

attention from the category to the individual. From a psychological point of view, we

switch the reader’s attention from the general class to the specific individual. This is how

the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1771) describes it: “But as this

particular object must in some manner be distinguished from others of the same class to

which it belongs, a particular class of words was found necessary to define and ascertain

these individuals . . . .”

There are two major words, “a” and “the,” called articles. (There are many others,

but more on this later.)

- 89 -

Once we have isolated the individual from amongst the class, according to

universal grammar, we next have a way of designating that individual, either as “known”

or as “unknown.” This is where the terms definite article (“the”) and indefinite article

(“a”) come into play. Again, the Encyclopaedia article explains this in an impressive

way:

To explain this by an example, I see an object pass by which I never saw till then:

What do I say? There goes man with A long beard The man departs, and returns a

week after: What do I then say? There goes THE man with THE long beard. Here

the article only is changed, the rest remains unaltered. Yet mark the force of this

apparently minute change. The individual once vague is now recognized as

something known, and that merely by the efficacy of this latter article, which

tacitly insinuates a kind of previous acquaintance, by referring a present

perception to a like perception already past.

Universal grammar also defines articles as “accessories.” Accessories are opposed to

“Principals.” Principal words carry meaning; accessories only support principals, by

connecting or modifying them. In other words, accessories are a kind of word that are

empty in themselves. There is no “the” to point at, no “a,” until these words are used to

introduce a word that actually carries meaning unto itself.

A third and often overlooked class of articles is defined as a “pronominal article,”

which means “derived from a pronoun,” including “my,” “his,” “her,” “our.” These also

isolate one or more individuals from amongst a large group or category. The pronominal

articles outnumber the two major articles, “a” and “the.”

- 90 -

A point which is stressed is the pronominal article’s ability to enumerate and / or

designate objects in a group with uncommon specificity.

This defining ability seems to be a particular strength of English. The universal

grammar writers suggest that the designating power enabled by articles is a feature that

gives English a very precise quality. The use of articles in English may be an element that

gives this language a reputation for its accuracy, rather than for its poetic melody like for

example the Spanish or French languages, which enjoy a reputation for musicality. In this

quote, the Encyclopaedia points out the unique place of articles in English:

Of all the parts of speech which may be considered as essential to language, there

is none in which we find so many languages defective as in this. For we know of

no language, except our own, which has the particular article a; and the Latin

language has no word of the same import with the word the. The reason of which

deficiency ,s that as other parts of speech may be so easily converted from their

original meaning, and be made to assume the character of definitives, they have

made some of these perform both of these offices; and as the article A only

separates a particular object, and is therefore so nearly allied to a numeral, many

languages, as the French, Italian, Spanish, and German, have made the numeral

word one supply its office, while others, as the Greek, have denoted this particular

object by a mere negation of the other article; and as the article the agrees with

pronouns in this respect, that they both denote reference, the Latins made their

pronoun, by a forced periphrasis, supply the place of this. But all of these methods

of supplying the want of the genuine article are defective, as will appear more

particularly by and by.

- 91 -

The next important topic outlined by the universal grammarians is the constraints on

article usage, constraints of which we are normally unaware. But when these constraints

are pointed out, we come to realize the degree of specificity that we instinctively employ

as fluent of English.

Britannica

As articles are by their nature definitives, it follows of course, that they cannot be

united with such words as are in their own nature as definite as they may be; nor

with such words which, being indefinite, cannot properly be made otherwise: but

only with those words which, tho’ indefinite, are yet capable, through the article,

of becoming definite.

Because the article is a definitive, it cannot be used with a noun which is already

completely defined. Therefore, you can’t say “the I,” or “the you,” or “the both.” This is

because “I,” “you,” and “both” refer to individuals who are already specified within the

discussion. You cannot specify the specific more specifically than it already is. Likewise,

we cannot say “the who” because “the” indicates a known but “who” automatically

indicates a person unknown. You cannot say “a who,” because both of these words are

accessories and thus carry no significant reference. For like reasons you cannot say “the

Bob” or “the Karen.”

Another impossible arrangement is “two the men.” The use of “two” suggests that

these two have not been identified specifically; otherwise, you would say “these two

men” or “the two men.” However, “both the men” is logical, because “both” (which

incidentally is a pronominal article) and “the” serve the same purpose: to identify two

specific individual men.

- 92 -

Finally, universal grammar distinguishes between the major articles and a second

class of articles which are called pronominal articles.

Pronominal articles are today usually swept in with adjectives. But that belies

their true function in language. It overlooks a slight difference in their behaviour and

limitations. Therefore to sweep them away would neglect a definite class of words; it

would lessen the precision of our analysis. We usually consider the article category as

comprising merely the two words, “a” and “the.” However, as explained below, a more

accurate analysis would also identify certain nouns and adjectives as pronominal articles.

These have specific article features and do not have all of the features of true nouns and

true adjectives.

When a noun or an adjective is not a significant word in itself, but only a word

that serves to designate or define a noun, it has become an article. When the word “that”

is used to replace an actual noun, it is acting as a pronoun. But when it is acting as a

definitive, as in “that man,” it is said to be a type of article, a pronominal article.

Pronominal articles have the exact same functions and attributes as the words

designates as “articles,” so, in the absence of any argument to the contrary, they must be

considered to be articles. The Encyclopaedia explains them in this way:

grammarians have been led into the mistake of placing (pronominal articles)

under (the pronoun} head, because they are the substitutes of these words, which,

a/though they assume the appearance of nouns, only perform the part of

definitives. Thus we have seen, that when we say, “Alexander’s house,” the word

“Alexander’s” can only be considered as a definitive: and, in the same manner, if

Alexander was the speaker, he might say, “MY house,” if the party addressed, it

- 93 -

should be “THY house,” or in any third person, “HIS, “and in the same manner

“HER” or “ITS” house. In all which cases this possessive pronoun is substituted

for that word which only serves to define and ascertain the identity of the noun,

and not for the noun itself, which must always be either expressed or understood.

None of these “pronouns” (“Alexander’s,” “my,” “thy,” “thy,” “his,” “her,” or “its”) is

actually a pronoun. None of them is actually standing in the place of a noun. These

“pronouns” are merely defining the noun. They could be called adjectives, but they have

little of the colour of adjectives. They simply enumerate of isolate, or specify; they have

no descriptive powers.

The Encyclopaedia continues:

To distinguish when they may be considered as pronouns, we may observe, that

when they stand by themselves, and supply the place of a noun, as when we say,

“THIS is virtue,” “give me THAT,” they are pronouns. But when they are

associated to some noun, as when we say, “THIS HABIT is virtue,” or “THAT

MAN defrauded me;” then, as they do not supply “the place” of a noun, but only

serve to “ascertain” one, they fall rather under the aspects of “definitives,” or

“articles.” And indeed it must be confessed, that these, as well as the possessive

pronouns, are more properly adapted to define and ascertain individuals among

nouns, than to supply their place; and therefore are oftener to be considered as

articles than as pronouns. The best rule to distinguish when they are to be

considered as the one or the other, is this. The genuine PRONOUN always stands

by itself, assuming the power of a NOUN, and supplying its place.’’

Since every pronominal article has the power of an article (which is the power to

- 94 -

ascertain and to define with specificity) the abundance of pronomial articles gives

English an uncommon specificity.

If this classification holds water, then English will be found to be rich in this part

of speech, the part of speech which makes a language particularly precise and definitive.

To conclude, here is one more glimpse from Britannica into the range and

defining power of pronominal articles:

Before we leave this subject, we shall produce one example to shew the utility of

this species of words,’ which, although of themselves insignificant, and seemingly

of small importance; yet, when properly applied, serve to make a few general

terms be sufficient for the accurate expression of a great variety of particulars, and

thus makes language capable of expressing things infinite, without wandering into

infinitude itself. — To explain this, let the general term be man, which I have

occasion to employ for the denoting of some particular. Let it be required to

express this particular, as Unknown, I say, A man: — Known, I say, THE man: —

be finite, A CERTAIN man: — Indefinite, ANY man: — Present and near, THIS

man: — Present and distant, THAT man: — Like to some other, SUCH a man: —

different from some other, ANOTHER man: — An indefinite multitude, MANY

men: — A definite multitude, A THOUSAND men: — The ones of a multitude,

taken throughout, EVERY man: — The same ones, taken with distinction, EACH

man: — Taken in order, FIRST man, SECOND man, etc.: — The whole

multitude of particulars taken collectively, ALL men. — The negation of that

multitude, NO man: — A number of particulars present, and at some distance,

THESE men: — At a greater distance, or opposed to others, THOSE men: — A

- 95 -

number present and near, THESE men: — A number of individuals different from

another number, OTHER men: — A great number of individuals taken

collectively, MANY men: — A small number, FEW men: — A proportionally

greater number, MORE men: — Smaller number, FEWER men: — And so on we

might go almost to infinitude. But not to dwell longer upon this article we shall

only remark, that minute changes in PRINCIPLES, lead to mighty changes in

EFFECTS; so that PRINCIPLES are well entitled to regard, however trivial they

may appear.

- 96 -

The Definite and the Indefinite Articles

from The Encyclopedia Britannica, First Edition, 1775

Supposing I see an object with which I am totally unacquainted, having a head

and limbs, and appearing to possess the powers of self-motion and sensation. If I

know it not as an individual, I refer it to its proper species, and call it "a dog," "a

horse," "a lion," or the like; and if none of the names of any species with which I

am acquainted fit it, I refer it to the genus, and call it "an animal."

But this is not enough. The object at which we are looking, and want to

distinguish, is perhaps an individual. -- Of what kind? "Known" or "unknown"?

Seen now "for the first time," or "seen before" and now remembered? It is here

we shall discover the use of the two articles A and THE; for the article A respects

our "primary" perception, and denotes individuals as "unknown;" whereas THE

respects our "secondary" perception, and denotes individuals as "known." To

explain this by an example, I see an object pass by which I never saw till then:

What do I say? "There goes A beggar with A long beard." The man departs, and

returns a week after: What do I then say? "There goes THE beggar with THE

long beard." Here the article only is changed, the rest remains unaltered. Yet

mark the force of this apparently minute change. The individual once vague is

now recognized as "something known," and that merely by the efficacy of this

latter article, which tacitly insinuates a kind of previous acquaintance, by referring

a present perception to a like perception already past. Hence therefore we see,

that although the articles A and THE are both of them "definitives," as they

circumscribe the latitude of genera and species, by reducing them, for the most

- 97 -

part, to denote individuals; yet they differ in this respect, that the article A leaves

the individual itself unascertained, but the article THE ascertains the individual

also, and is for that reason the more accurate definitive of the two. They differ

likewise in this respect, that as the article A serves only to separate one

particular object from the general class to which it belongs, it cannot be applied

to plurals. But as the article THE serves to define objects, or refer to them as

already known, without relation to number, or any other circumstances, it is

applicable to both numbers indiscriminately, as well as nouns of every "gender,"

without suffering any sort of change; for it is evident, that no variation of the

nature of the noun can make any difference in those words which serve to define

or denote a certain reference to them. So that although we find some modern

languages which admit of a variation of their article, which relates to the gender

of the noun with which it is associated, yet this cannot be considered as essential

to this species of words: and so far is this from being an improvement to the

language, that it only serves to perplex and confuse, as it always presents a

particular idea of sex, where in many cases it is not in the least necessary.

Of all the parts of speech which may be considered as essential to

language, there is none in which we find so many languages defective as in this.

For we know of no language, except our own, which has the particular article A;

and the Latin language has no word of the same import with the word THE. The

reason of which deficiency is, that as other parts of speech may be so easily

converted from their original meaning, and be made to assume the character of

definitives, they have made some of these perform both of these offices; and as

- 98 -

the article A only separates a particular object, and is therefore so nearly allied to

a numeral, many languages, as the French, Italian, Spanish, and German, have

made the numeral word ONE supply its office, while others, as the Greek, have

denoted this particular object by a mere negation of the other article; and as the

article THE agrees with pronouns in this respect, that they both denote reference,

the Latins made their pronoun, by a forced periphrasis, supply the place of this.

But all of these methods of supplying the want of the genuine article are

defective, as will appear more particularly by and by. As articles are by their

nature definitives, it follows of course, that they cannot be united with such words

as are in their own nature as definite as they may be; nor with such words which,

being indefinite, cannot properly be made otherwise: but only with those words

which, tho' indefinite, are yet capable, through the article, of becoming definite.

Hence we see the reason why it is absurd to say THE I or THE THOU, because

nothing can make these pronouns more "definite" than they are; and the same

may be said of proper names. Neither can we say THE BOTH, because these

words are in their own nature each of them perfectly defined. Thus, if it be said, "I

have read BOTH poets," this plainly indicates "a definite pair," of whom some

mention has been made already. On the contrary, if it be said, "I have read TWO

poets," this may mean "any pair" out of all that ever existed. And hence this

numeral, being in this sense "indefinite," (as indeed are all others as well as

itself,) is forced "to assume the article" whenever it would become "definite."

Hence also it is, that as TWO, when taken alone, has reference to some

"primary" and "indefinite" perception, while the article THE has reference to some

- 99 -

perception "secondary" and "definite," it is bad language to say TWO THE MEN,

as this would be "blending of incompatibles," that is to say, of "a defined

substantive" with an "undefined attributive." On the contrary, to say BOTH THE

MEN, is good and allowable; because the substantive cannot possibly be less

apt, by being defined, to coalesce with an attributive which is defined as well as

itself. So likewise it is correct to say, THE TWO MEN; because here the article,

being placed at the beginning, "extends its power" as well through substantive as

attributive, and equally tends to "define" them both.

As some of the words above admit of no article, because they are by

nature as definite as may be; so there are others which admit it not, because

they are not to be defined at all. Of this sort are all INTERROGATIVES. If we

question about substances, we cannot say THE WHO IS THIS; but WHO IS

THIS? And the same as to "qualities," and both kinds of "quantities": for we say,

without an article, WHAT SORT OF, HOW MANY, HOW GREAT? The reason is,

the article THE respects beings "about which we are ignorant;" for as to what we

know, interrogation is superfluous. In a word, the "natural associators with

articles" are ALL THOSE COMMON APPELLATIVES WHICH DENOTE THE

SEVERAL GENERA AND SPECIES OF BEINGS. It is these, which, by assuming

a different article, serve either to explain an individual upon its first being

perceived, or else to indicate, upon its return, a recognition or repeated

knowledge.

Before we leave this subject, we shall produce one example to show the

utility of this species of words; which, although of themselves insignificant, and

- 100 -

seemingly of small importance; yet, when properly applied, serve to make a few

general terms be sufficient for the accurate expression of a great variety of

particulars, and thus makes language capable of expressing things infinite,

without wandering into infinitude itself. To explain this, let the general term be

man, which I have occasion to employ for the denoting of some particular. Let it

be required to express this particular, as unknown, I say, “A man”: known, I say

“THE man”: definite, “a CERTAIN man”: indefinite, “ANY man”: present and

near, “THIS man”: present and distant, “THAT man”: like to some other,

“ANOTHER man”: an indefinite multitude, “MANY men”: a definite multitude, “a

THOUSAND men”: the ones of a multitude, taken throughout, “EVERY man”:

the same ones, taken with distinction, “EACH man”: taken in order, “FIRST man,

SECOND man, etc”: the whole multitude of particulars taken collectively, “ALL

men”: the negation of that multitude, “NO man”: a number of particulars taken

collectively, “ALL men”: the negation of that multitude, “NO man”: a number of

particulars present, and at some distance, “THESE men”: at a greater distance,

or opposed to others, “THOSE men”: a number of individuals different from

another number, “OTHER men”: a great number of individuals taken collectively,

“MANY men”: a small number, “FEW man”: a proportionally greater number,

“MORE men”: smaller number, “FEWER men”: and so on we might go almost to

infinitude. But not to dwell longer upon this article we shall only remark that

minute changes in principles lead to mighty changes in effects; so that principles

are well entitled to regard, however trivial they may appear.

***

- 101 -

Prepositional phrase as adjective: The boy in the bubble.

Past participial phrase as adjective: The boy spanked yesterday.

Present participial phrase as adjective: The boy running first in the marathon.

Infinitive phrase as adjective: The boy to beat at the races this year!

The present participle phrase as a noun:

Developing the technology will take only two years.

Copying books by hand is a lost art.

- 102 -

Second Order Attributes

- 103 -

The adverb is designated by Universal Grammarians as a second order attribute, or “the attribute

of an attribute.” This is because adverbs modify both types of attributes, both adjectives and

verbs. This equivalence between the verb and the adjective is the most telling reason to equate

verbs and adjectives together: they are both modified by adverbs. And while strictly speaking

this reasoning is circular it is nevertheless illustrative.

- 104 -

- 105 -

Connectives

- 106 -

Connectives are of two types: conjunctions and prepositions. A preposition is always both

preceded by and followed by a noun because of its connective function. A preposition without a

following noun makes about as much sense as a conjunction without a following noun: there

would be nothing to connect. A conjunction must join two things; it can't join just one thing.

Since a conjunction must join two or more specific things, grammatical analysis invites us to

identify those “things” with all sorts of word clusters. Again, we are looking at a whole cluster of

words functioning as a single unit. The functions remain the same whether they are performed by

a single word or by a cluster acting as a single word. Likewise a preposition must stand between

two things, and express the physical relationship between them. A preposition word with nothing

afterward would be better classified as an adverb.

Conjunctions express the logical relationship between two things; prepositions express

the spatial relationships. Words like “although” “because” “if” “when” and so on, all relate two

things according to logical concepts such as causation, conditionality, temporal sequence or

contrast. A preposition on the other hand relates two nouns in reference to space or time: one

noun is on the other, or beside it, or under it, or around it, and so on.

Conjunctions can join two of anything: a word to a word, a phrase to a phrase, a clause to

a clause or a sentence to a sentence. It is normal for a conjunction to join two of the same kind of

thing, word, phrase, clause or sentence. Every time you add a new thing, you need to use a

conjunction to join them. In the case of brief lists, a single conjunction may stand in lieu of a

whole series of conjunctions.

- 107 -

Clause Conjunctions

I. Independent Clause Conjunctions

1) Coordinating Conjunctions

and

but

or, not

for, so, yet

;

:

2) Relative Adverbs

however, moreover, therefore, nevertheless, nonetheless, whereas,

meanwhile, consequently, indeed, furthermore, hence, likewise,

accordingly, instead, etc.

II. Dependent Clause Conjunctions

1) Subordinating Conjunctions

because, although, even though, whether, since, unless, until, if, even if,

as, as if, as soon, as, as long as, as much as, just as, after, before

2) Relative Pronouns

that, what, whatever, which, who, whom, whoever, whose

- 108 -

3) Relative Adverbs

where, when, whenever, why

4) Correlative Conjunctions

either—or,

neither—nor,

both—and,

whether—or,

just as—so,

not only—but also

The arrangement of the above conjunctions directly corresponds with the arrangement of clauses

which defines the type of sentence it is: simple, compound, complex, or compound-complex.

This is one very worthwhile way to look at sentence design.

***

- 109 -

Prepositions

The boy IN/AND the bubble.

Why are prepositions sub-categorized by grammarians as another type of Connective, along with

conjunctions?

Conjunctions express the logical linkage between two things: a word to a word, a phrase

to a phrase, a clause to a clause or a sentence to a sentence.

The term “and” is said to be a logical connector. Please note that the word “in” also

performs a connective function: boy and bubble are connected as to location or relationship: the

boy IN the bubble. Therefore, it has been said by grammarians that the conjunction Part of

Speech is a logical connector, and the preposition part of speech is a spatial connector.

The overwhelming preponderance of prepositional phrases and conjunctive arrangements

in the English language illustrates a very spatio-logical underground to our thinking.

A preposition is always followed by a noun because of its connective function. A

preposition without a following noun makes about as much sense as a plus sign with a blank

space after it: no numeral. It is an incomplete expression. A conjunction must join two things; it

can't join one thing. A preposition word with nothing afterward would be better classified as an

adverb. It wouldn’t even be a preposition.

If one of the two things is missing then we can only say that the structure is incomplete.

Incompleteness is a further general concept favoured by grammarians. Like a conjunction, a

preposition likewise must stand between two things, but it must express the physical relationship

between them, not the logical relationship.

Every prepositional phrase functions either as an adjective or an adverb

- 110 -

Syntax

- 111 -

In the discussions earlier in this little encyclopedia of grammar, the term “accidence” was

applied solely to the forms and changes taking place within single words only. For example,

when “dog” changes to “dog’s” or “dogs,” the changes taking place are “accidental.” In turn,

they are not “substantial;” they are not changes in the essence of the object.

In turn, it has been said that syntax enjoys sole ownership of the view of the units within

language not in terms of their own properties, but in terms of other units within the sentence or

phrase.

However, this razor sharp distinction is subtly misleading. The above changes in word for

occur because the word stands in relation to another word. “Go” changes to “goes” because the

subject noun changes from first to third person. There is therefore a recognition of inter-lexical

connections even within the level of accidence. The wider branchings-out between words

underlies accidence in a subtle way.

It is the level of syntax, however, that deals in an overt way with the groupings of words.

Syntax deals with clusters of words which are now acting not as individual words anymore, but

as coherent syntactical-semantic units, which are whole unto themselves, and which are

characterized by the unity of their unitary function.

Therefore, in order to study grammar, one of the most important things we will learn to

do is to change our way of conceiving of sentences and language. We must no longer see

language as a string of independent words like a chain of pearls in a necklace. Rather, the pearls

come in clusters. In syntax, we look at them as clusters, and we no longer look at or refer to their

functions as individual words. That level of analysis, the lexical level, is out-of-bounds when we

are doing syntactical analysis. That level is simply sealed-off or irrelevant to the conversation.

This is a divided, academic-minded approach to the subject, to seal off its various dimensions for

- 112 -

the purposes of analysis.

What makes the syntactical dimension real is primarily the phenomenon of function.

Why is a cluster like “in the barn” actually a cluster, and not just a heap of words?

Well, one good reason is that this group of words performs a unitary function among

itself as a team of words. When it is used in language, “in the barn” will function either as an

adjective or an adverb. For example, it will be an adjective as in “This is the tractor in the barn;”

and it will be an adverb in “Please leave the tractor in the barn.”

No, this structure tells us some very important structural things. Let’s look at it this way:

One, we have two words in the above sentences, “tractor” and “leave,” which are being

modified. Each of these words has a modifier. It is as if we had said “the big tractor” and “leave

quickly.” The two words, tractor a noun and leave a verb, each have a modifier attached. But of

course, these modifiers are modifying phrases, not modifying words: “which tractor? The tractor

in the barn. Leave how? Leave in the barn.”

Now what is strange, from is a philosophical viewpoint, is how the existence of the

modifier functions is not tied to any one specific word. The modifier function in being carried

out, but there is nowhere to locate it, and nothing to attach it to, except to the whole group of

words acting in concert.

So where do you get the modifier? Which word is the adjective? Which word is the

adverb?

Well, I am telling you that only the whole group, taken as a cluster, can be the answer to

the question.

But what does this mean philosophically? It means that we have an invisible function

occurring in language. That’s what it means. It means that those modifying phrases are not when

- 113 -

viewed from syntax, they are not individual words. There is the form of a unit there which does

not appear in the graphics of English spelling. In reality, there is a circle or brackets around the

phrase. These are the invisible words. This is the magic circle of Hermes, the god of grammar

and messages.

***

To review: syntax is based on the function of a connected word group taken as one whole unit.

When a group of words forms into a syntactical cluster, you can safely ignore the individual

words within that segment. Syntax is blind to the individual words, and sees only the cluster that

they form. The individual words have been subsumed. The whole cluster has taken on its own

individual reality. It has become a word in and of itself. Accordingly, the functions that these

segments perform are the exact same functions that words taken at the lexical level also

originally perform, namely, the Parts of Speech. They may be adjective units, or adverb units, or

noun or verb units.

Syntactical study is therefore the study of words clusters within sentences which act and

connect with one another in various ways, including by their Part of Speech function, and their

functions within clause structure that connect clusters of words in various ways.

The syntax of the clause is based upon the following functions: Subject, Predicate, Verb,

Adjective, Adverb, Object, Indirect Object:

“Subject”: a matter for examination; a noun which performs the action of a verb

“Predicate”: the state or condition which is asserted of a noun

“Object”: a noun which receives the action of a verb

Further related vocabulary includes:

“Phrase”: a cluster of words that functions as one part of speech

- 114 -

“Clause”: a segment consisting of a subject and a predicate; a segment based on a noun

and a verb that go together to form some kind of assertion

“Predicate”: a finite verb and other possible accessories

“Sentence”: a clause or group of clauses at least one of which is independent

“Independent Clause”: a clause that is not governed by a subordinating conjunction; a

clause that can stand alone as a sentence

“Dependent Clause”: a clause that is governed by a subordinating conjunction, and that

cannot stand alone as a sentence

“Noun Substantive”: the name of an independent entity

“Noun Adjective”: the name of an attribute

- 115 -

In this chapter we will start to define the particular segment types more specifically. These

segment types will include the prepositional phrase, the infinitive phrase, and the participial

phrase. You may think of a phrase as a small, closed unit in which all of the words work

together as one. The little cluster of words has unity and the words together as a group perform

one grammatical function.

***

Of all the phrases, the prepositional phrase is the most regular. It is a closed unit that begins on a

preposition and includes everything up until the next noun. Thus, this phrase type actually

follows a specific formula: preposition to noun: p —> n. This formula states that you start the

phrases on each preposition, and continue the phrase until you reach the next following noun.

Over and over again this pattern, “preposition to noun,” occurs in English writing. The fact that

we can use a formula emphasizes the regularity of this phrase type. These phrases make up

perhaps 30 to 40 percent of all of English, and every prepositional phrase follows the exact same

pattern. A lavish amount of the English language is turned over to prepositions, so their

relationship to our thinking must bear heavily. As a result, the analysis of this type of phrase is

quite habit forming: if you have not already been introduced to this phrase, you will begin to

recognize it very quickly. Once you start to see them, you see them everywhere. Furthermore,

the regularity of the prepositional phrase pattern helps to prove a thesis this textbook, namely,

that word clusters within a sentence have a solid unity. Something that recurs over and over

again in the same pattern is probably a unit. Prepositional phrases are solid, consistent word

clusters that are the workhorse of the English language.

Prepositions are words like in, on, at, under, over, through, beside, by, behind, upon,

along, near, to, and of. Every one of these words starts a prepositional phrase. Just add any

- 116 -

noun (for example “the barn”) to any one of the prepositions above, and you will get a

prepositional phrase, such as

in the barn,

on the barn,

at the barn,

under the barn,

over the barn,

through the barn,

beside the barn,

by the barn,

behind the barn,

upon the barn,

along the barn,

near the barn,

to the barn,

of the barn,

and so on for other prepositions. Or you could select any other noun (like “the river”), and run

through all of the prepositions again, to create another whole set of prepositional phrases.

There are very few variations to alter the basic pattern of the prepositional phrase. One

variation is to add a compound noun at the end, such as “near the river and the trees.”

In this case the formula alters slightly: p —> n & n. However, this is essentially the

same pattern. It is still “from preposition to noun,” but this time the noun is something called a

“compound noun.” Whenever something in grammar is doubled up (with the conjunction “and”

for example) the structure is called “compound.” “Compound” means to add or double

something, like when you compound your problems. So “near the river and the trees” does keep

to the same pattern, only with a compound noun instead of a single noun. Furthermore, it is

impossible to stop the unit after the first noun, river, because to do so would cut the link between

“river” and “trees” which is created by the conjunction “and.” You can’t cut up grammatical

structures in order to demonstrate grammatical structures.

- 117 -

One could take this grammatical reasoning further, as follows: Let us say that the

conjunction “and” joins the two nouns. It’s a conjunction, so it has to join two or more things.

But to join two things is to make them into one thing, isn’t it? And since they are joined, and

therefore they essentially act as one thing, we are keeping to the same formula, p n. it is a case

of “preposition to (compound) noun.” This is the sort of structural reasoning that you would find

everywhere in traditional grammar. Everything in traditional grammar is this sort of reasoning

about the structure of language.

Most prepositional phrases are very short; just two words are needed: “to me,” “for us,”

“through darkness,” etc. Others can become quite long, but they still keep to the essential

formula: “for every barn and each haystack,” “to one or the other class member,” “in the most

official and profound designation,” etc. These are all cases of p —> n.

In addition to these structural variations, there are also some deceptive cases to look out

for. Some words can function as a preposition at one time, but can function as a different part of

speech at other times. It all depends on the particular usage in any actual case. For example, the

word “for” can be used exactly as the above cases: “This new lumber is for the barn.” When

used as such, in a perfect match with the formula, one can easily argue that the word in this case

is functioning as a preposition. However, there is another case where it does not fit with the

formula:

We need new lumber, for we are building a new barn.

In this case the word “for” is not a preposition introducing a single noun. Instead, it

seems to be acting as a conjunction to join two internal mini-sentences, namely, “we need

lumber” and “we are building a new barn.” Because it is used in a joining function, in this case

“for” must be defined as a conjunction. Another example is “as.” It can be used in the pattern of

- 118 -

prepositional phrases (“I speak as a representative”); or it can be used to join two whole

sentences (“She waved as the boat sailed westwards”). “Until” can be a preposition (“we waited

until noon’), or it can be a conjunction (“we waited until she gave the signal”). And the word

“before” also has these two functions: “I read the book before me;” “I read the book before I see

the movie.”

Finally, a few prepositions can function as adverbs. “Above” is a word that can function

within the formula (“above the barn”). But it can also act alone as a simple modifier (“the

above pages,” “the cases mentioned above”), in which case the word is simply as an adjective or

an adverb. Generally, when you find one of these words without a following noun, it is working

in its adverb function.

These are the variations in structure applicable to the prepositional phrase. All things

considered, it is a very consistent, repetitive language structure. Once you get an ear for the

phrase type it will become quite easy for you to pick them out from the page.

***

from Lectures on Rhetoric (1783), by Hugh Blair

Perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style, a quality so essential in every kind of

writing, that, for the lack of it, nothing can atone.

Without perspicuity, the richest ornaments of style only glimmer through the dark.

Authors sometimes plead the difficulty of their subject, as an excuse for the lack of

perspicuity.

The study of perspicuity requires attention, first, to single words and phrases, and then to

the construction of sentences.

Purity is the use of words and constructions that belong to the idiom of the language

- 119 -

which we speak; in opposition to words and phrases that are imported from other

languages, or that are obsolete, or new-coined, or used without proper authority.

The above discussion of style relates chiefly to the choice of words.

***

Prepositional phrases account for about 95% of all the phrase types that we have to deal

with in this chapter. Crossing them out is very habit forming. They are so numerous and so

regular that they make our job for this Chapter very easy!

However, there are a few additional phrase types that we must also account for. These

types, infinitive phrases and participial phrases, are very similar in pattern to the prepositional

phrase, but they do introduce more exceptions, variations, and some difficulties.

The infinitive phrase follows a formula just like the prepositional phrase, but in this case

the formula has more variations. The prepositional phrase always ends on a noun. But the

infinitive phrase can end 1) on a noun, 2) on nothing, in other words, just the infinitive, or 3) on

an adverb that modifies the infinitive. So the formula should show the three possible endings,

noun, nothing, and adverb: inf n / Ø / av. Basically, there are more options as to how an

infinitive phrase can end. Infinitive phrases are modelled after the prepositional, but introduce

more variations.

But what is an infinitive? This is the necessary question, because, just like every

preposition is the opening word of a prepositional phrase, every infinitive is the first word in an

infinitive phrase.

The infinitive itself is constructed by placing the word “to” in front of any verb in the

language. For example “to consider,” “to see,” “to purchase,” and so on, are all the infinitive

forms of these verbs. Every verb in the language can be made into an infinitive in this way. The

- 120 -

infinitive phrase simply uses this infinitive verb as the starting key word. You could take any

prepositional phrase, and replace the preposition with an infinitive, and it would become an

infinitive phrase, for example “in the barn” would become “to purchase the barn.” Now, another

difference is that the infinitive obviously occupies two words, whereas the preposition is only

one word. but it is not two words. It is one infinitive. (Remember, the clusters are real entities!)

Try to think of the two-word infinitive as the one focal starting point of the phrase. To make an

infinitive phrase, you simply start with any infinitive, and then fill it in the rest as per the above

formula, in other words with a noun, with nothing, or with an adverb. In the two-page

worksheet below, there are ten infinitive phrases.

***

Finally, the participial phrase also matches the structures described above quite well.

Like the previous two, it depends entirely on the key starting word. Prepositional phrases start

on every preposition; infinitives on every infinitive; and likewise, participial phrases start on

each participle.

A participle is the term for words that are a single component, hence “part,” of a verb in

the English verb system. As we know, English verbs often take up more than a single word.

Most of our verbs are two, three, and sometimes four words in length. (Remember, they are now

several words; they are one verb.) In the sentence “I have been going to the gym regularly,” the

actual verb is three words: “have been going.” You need all three of the words to express the

complete action that takes place, “have been going.” “Going” tells you what the action is, and

“have been” tells you the tense or time in which it takes place. In a sentence like “I go,” the verb

is one word; but in “I am going” the verb is two words.

Participles come from multiple-word verbs like these. Let’s start with one complete verb

- 121 -

and proceed to take it apart.

If you say “She was considering a career in mathematics,” then the verb is “was

considering.” The second part of that verb (i.e., the word “considering”) is the participle. Please

note that the word “considering” cannot act on its own as the verb. It is only part of a verb, a

participle. If you take it alone, you get “She considering,” which does not function as anything

in grammar that I can see. So in other words, the participle part of the verb is not the actual verb

on its own. The actual verb is “was considering,” and the participle is “considering.” But

something happens in language. These participles can become detached from their verbs. They

can float away, and we can find the participle part starting to occur by itself in other areas of the

sentence. In these cases, the detached word cannot function as a verb anymore. It begins to

function as a modifier. It may become the head-word in a word cluster. When this happens, we

get a participle phrase.

In this sentence –

“Considering her resume, a career is guaranteed”--

the root sentence is “a career is guaranteed.” The other part is a participial phrase,

“considering her resume.” It starts on a key word (a participle), and it goes to the next noun.

You could replace the participle “considering” with any preposition or infinitive in the language.

So these segments, starting from the key word participle (a verb segment no longer acting as an

independent verb), and going to the next following noun, forms a participle phrase. Other

examples would be “Selecting her resume was the easiest part of the committee’s work;” and

“Writing her resume took all night.”

The above are examples of present participle phrases. It is called a present participle

because, with its “-ing” ending, it is in the present tense, “considering,” A past participial phrase

- 122 -

(which is even more rare) is structured the same way as all of the above examples, but participle

is in the past tense, so it would be “considered” instead of “considering.” The corresponding

example would be “Considered as a whole, her resume is good.” Because they can also be

followed by a noun, by nothing, or by an adverb, the formula for the participle phrase is: inf n /

Ø / av. Examples of these three types of phrases are in bold in the next sentences by Blair:

from Lectures on Rhetoric continued…

By giving attention to the rules which relate to this part of style, we acquire the habit of

expressing ourselves with perspicuity and elegance; and, if a disorder does arise in some of our

sentences, we immediately see where it lies, and are able to rectify it.

In every composition, of whatever kind, some degree of unity is required, in order to

render it beautiful.

The exact import of precision may be drawn from the etymology of the word.

It comes from “precidere,” “to cut off”: It imports retrenching all superfluities, and

pruning the expression so as to exhibit neither more nor less than an exact copy of his idea who

uses it.

Feeble writers employ a multitude of words to make themselves understood, as they

think, more distinctly; and they only confound the reader.

- 123 -

Constituents of the Clause

- 124 -

It is technically inconsistent to mingle the terminology of nouns and verbs with the terminology

of subjects and predicates. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, articles,

pronouns and so on are the terminology of lexical categories. Subject, predicate, compliment,

predicate verb, predicate noun, object, indirect object and so on are the terminology of

syntactical functions.

In a philosophical sense, the subject is what you choose to focus on. You are the speaker;

you put something on the table for speech. You prepare to utter. You “sub” “-ject;” you “throw

down” something. It becomes the subject of your speech and the grammatical subject of your

clause. You subject it to speech.

The subject is a phrase centering upon a noun(s) with the understanding that this phrase

will become predicated by the clause. Predication is where the utter of the clause applies a finite

verb along with numerous other possible predicate elements. A predicate is thus the sum total of

things the clause says about or applies to the subject. This is what it means to predicate.

The predicate in turn consists of two parts: the verb and optionally the compliment. The

compliment compliments the verb; that is, it goes along with the verb, the way fine wine

compliments tender viands.

Of the verbs, two types are transitive and intransitive. This refers to the verb’s propensity

to have or not to have an object. In many verbs, the action described “transits” through to the

following noun, which is called the “object” of the clause. Verbs that transit this way are called

transitive verbs. A classic transitive verb is in “Jane throws the ball.” For the verb to make

complete sense, it needs the object noun ball. Jane cannot throw without throwing something.

It’s philosophically impossible. The verb can’t exist in that state. It is said by grammarians that

the meaning of the particular verb “throw” cannot be made complete without the addition of a

- 125 -

thing that is thrown. Alone it is conceptually, inherently incomplete. It is a transitive verb whose

action transits through to a following noun, which is called the object of the clause.

To make matters even worse, there are things called dual transitives. The meaning of

these verbs necessitates that you give it a noun plus an adverbial phrase. The classic example is

“put”: He put the dog in the car carrier. If you say “put,” you must say what, and where. You

can’t say “He put.” or “He put the dog.” Once you say “put” you are committed.

Fortunately, by the grace of God, there are also a lot of non-transitive or intransitive

verbs out there as well! These are verbs that require neither a noun nor an adverb. She laughed.

House prices have risen. These verbs are a healing to the soul.

- 126 -

The clause in grammar occurs when we have a union of a grammatical subject with a

grammatical predicate. At minimum, this means the combination of any noun with any finite

verb. Every one of these two-word combinations, noun and verb, forms a minimal but

grammatically complete sentence. “Jesus wept.” Therefore, at minimum the predicate is a finite

verb. By uttering the noun and the verb together, the speaker expresses some mode of assertion.

These elements — noun, verb, assertion — form the essence of speech. Furthermore, deep at the

bottom of every sentence, no matter how long and complicated, you will find one of these

primitive assertions. <— in this <— sentence, the core is “you” “will find.”

Strictly speaking, it is an incorrect mixture of grammatical terms from different domains

to say that a clause consists of a subject, a verb and a noun or object. There are in fact two

different strata hidden within that terminology. One stratum is the word “subject.” Aligned with

- 127 -

“predicate,” the subject is said to be predicated of some attributes. Attributes consist of two

types: one that modifies in regards to action or state of being (verbs); and one in regards to

quality or quantity (adjectives). This stratum, the subject-predicate stratum, also includes an act

of assertion on the part of the speaker. The verb in particular is said by universal grammarians to

“assert” some factual or potential state of being. A key difference between verbs and adjectives

is not what they modify: they both modify a noun. However, they modify them in two very

different ways.

The second stratum is aligned with the same words, in a different way. The terminology

belonging to this stratum is that of noun, verb, adjective, and adverb. We are no longer using the

terms “subject” and “predicate;” however, we are still analyzing the exact same set of words, or

sentence.

The terms “subject” and “object” refer to the words in their syntactical role. A particular

noun becomes a grammatical “subject” when that noun is used in tandem with a verb to form an

assertion. When combined in this way, the noun and the verb become the subject and the

predicate. As words, they are nouns and verbs; as parts of a grammatical clause, they are subject

and predicate.

Of course both the subject and the predicate can subdivide: a full grammatical subject

would include a number of words, several words in most cases. The whole group of words, taken

together as one segment, constitute the grammatical subject. Subject and predicate are thus larger

categories than nouns and verbs when pertaining to single words.

When we were studying grammatical accidence, we were looking at rules and changes in

form that pertain to the single word. We said, therefore, that the level of accidence is the single

word level; while the level of syntax is the level of words taken in clusters.

- 128 -

When a group of words forms into a syntactical cluster, you can safely ignore the

individual words within that cluster as far as your analysis goes. At the level of clusters, syntax is

blind to the contents or ingredients in those clusters. The cluster of individual words has now

become a single word, or a single word in effect, strength and structure.

However, this is only a partially accurate view. The truth is that many of the “accidental”

changes in word forms take place because of the word’s relationship to other words.

For example, the form of “dog” changes to the possessive, “the dog’s bone,” when the

word is used in the possessive case. But it is in the possessive case simply because it has been

connected to the word “bone.” In another example, “I” changes to “me,” “he” to “him” when

those words change their relationships to other words in the sentences.

So the division of grammar into accidence (word) and syntax (cluster) is nuanced to that

degree at least.

Thus we can say that syntax rises above the individual word level, and looks at the cluster

of words created by the accidence connections. Syntax deals with word clusters which are now

acting, not as individual words anymore, but as segment5s closed and whole unto themselves.

We will next be looking at how those higher-level segments move, function and inter-relate

together just as if they were single entities, as tightly unified as single words even.

- 129 -

Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genitive are the names of what are called the

“grammatical cases” in the grammar of the Latin language.

Adam Smith makes reference to “…those prepositions that stand in the place of the

ancient cases” (”First Formation”).

- 130 -

- 131 -

During the period between the Anglo-Saxon migrations to Britannia, and the time of Chaucer,

the English language underwent such drastic changes that whereas it began as an inflected

language it ended up and is now a totally different kind of language, an analytical one.

The difference lies in the method each language uses to communicate the syntactical

roles of the words in a sentence. It is not true that every single noun plays the same role in

sentence syntax. For example, one noun is the subject, another noun is the object, another noun is

the object of a possessive, and another is in an indirect relationship.

These cases — subject, object, possessive and indirect object — are indicated in English

by word order: the subject comes before the verb and performs the action of the verb; the object

comes after the verb and receives the action of the verb.

However, it is more common in languages to show these roles by inflections, not by word

order. In such languages, the object may come before the verb, but still be on the receiving end

of the action of the verb. Here, the roles of subject, object, possessive and indirect object are

announced by means of a certain syllable ending the word. All nouns in the subject role end in “-

a,” for example. In that case, all the same nouns would switch their ending, to “-am,” for

example, to show that the noun is now playing the part of the object in the sentence. The “-am”

word may be located anywhere, but it will still be acting as the receiver of the action of the verb,

as, as the object of the clause, not the subject.

Examples of case endings from Latin and Anglo-Saxon are presented in the illustration.

- 132 -

- 133 -

A Closer Look at Predicates

- 134 -

The grammatical compliment is generally understood to be “Darling, I love your participles and

your gender.”

But in a more boring sense, the grammatical “complement” is that part of the sentence which is

required to complete the meaning of the verb. Some verbs have a meaning that simply

necessitates another element to be folded into the equation. Certain essential information is

clearly demanded. Finally, some verbs require a more complex compliment than others.

Traditional grammar further subdivides types of complements in a quite furious manner. I do not

propose to follow these trails as far as they may lead. The reader is referred to cyberspace.

- 135 -

The principle of “inflections” is that there are changes of form in a word that reflect changes in

its grammatical functions.

One form of dual transitive verb produces a case where two following nouns are required,

one to take the action of the verb, and one to modify the action of the verb: “She handed the

remote to me;” “Jeremy gave a card to her;” “Diana is buying a present for Martha.” These ones

also transform into the following arrangements: “She handed me the remote;” “Jeremy gave her

a card;” “Diana is buying Martha a present.”

In the Latin Case system, the direct object is not signified in this way.

In English, the direct object is designated because it 1) immediately follows the verb and

2) it receives the action of the verb. The indirect object, in turn, is signified because it takes the

form of the object of a preposition: “to me” “to her” “for Martha.”

In Latin, these two roles, direct and indirect object, are signified in a completely different

way. Rather than by position or by preposition, they are signified in Latin by word ending.

The history of inflections and English is that English was originally an inflected language

every bit as much as Latin and Greek, as much as any known inflected language.

In the original Old English language which the Germanic migrants brought to England in

the fourth century, all of the grammatical alignments are equivalent to those of the Latin and

other Inflected languages. Modern English, however, is a classic Analytic language, and so has

transformed itself at a very deep level a number of times over the first two millennia.

In the analysis of the Latin and the Anglo-Saxon languages, the direct object is

designated as the accusative case; the indirect object is the dative case; and the cases are rounded

out by the nominative (which is the subject of the clause) and the genitive (which is the

possessive form). All of these roles are performed in the English language in a different way.

- 136 -

The information is entirely carried by word position and six particular prepositions in the English

language.

One major pool of fossilized inflections in the English language is in its personal pronoun

system. Preserved in some of the very most common and core vocabulary of all is a tracery of

the original inflectional threadings of Anglo-Saxon syntax, a dimension of the language that has

been entirely lost otherwise.

- 137 -

- 138 -

Aristotle, On Categories, Section 2:7

Those things are called relative, which, being either said to be of something else or

related to something else, are explained by reference to that other thing. For instance,

the word 'superior' is explained by reference to something else, for it is superiority over

something else that is meant. Similarly, the expression 'double' has this external

reference, for it is the double of something else that is meant. So it is with everything

else of this kind. There are, moreover, other relatives, e.g. habit, disposition, perception,

knowledge, and attitude. The significance of all these is explained by a reference to

something else and in no other way. Thus, a habit is a habit of something, knowledge is

knowledge of something, attitude is the attitude of something. So it is with all other

relatives that have been mentioned. Those terms, then, are called relative, the nature of

which is explained by reference to something else, the preposition 'of' or some other

preposition being used to indicate the relation. Thus, one mountain is called great in

comparison with son with another; for the mountain claims this attribute by comparison

with something. Again, that which is called similar must be similar to something else,

and all other such attributes have this external reference. It is to be noted that lying and

standing and sitting are particular attitudes, but attitude is itself a relative term. To lie, to

stand, to be seated, are not themselves attitudes, but take their name from the

aforesaid attitudes.

- 139 -

A clause may be defined as a key noun and a key verb that go together to form a basic assertion.

Clauses are the little core, mini-sentences within every sentence. Within the clause, there

are two key, core words, which constitute the very center of the sentence.

These two words are termed the “subject” and the “verb” respectively, and in

combination they form the very minimum of any statement, sentence, or assertion.

When one removes all of the prepositional phrases, and the participial and infinitive

phrases, the words that remain generally fall into coherent minimal sentences. These core

sentences are the clauses that we are looking for. Here are some examples from the Eighteenth

Century grammarian Hugh Blair:

Without perspicuity, the richest ornaments of style only glimmer through the dark.

Authors sometimes plead the difficulty of their subject, as an excuse for the lack of

perspicuity.

The bolded words are the very core words of the clauses. The clause centers upon a key noun

and a key verb that go together to form an assertion.

Please note that clauses actually focus narrowly on two key words in each case. Among

the leftover words in the first example, “ornaments” and “glimmer” stand out as the two key

words of the clause, the noun and the verb that go together to form a core statement, namely,

“ornaments glimmer.” In the second example, “authors plead” is the core. In this case the core

also have a following noun, “the difficulty,” which is called the (optional) object. The other

words in the sentences, such as “the richest” and “only” and “sometimes,” are in a supporting

role to these base words. They are all modifiers of the core subject and verb. Therefore, they are

really part of the subject and verb, which is the definition of the clause, and therefore it is true to

say that all of the words not in brackets constitute the clauses in these sentences.

- 140 -

The words not crossed out are either the subject and verb (and optional object), or words

that support them. Finally, the phrases that have been crossed out have already been identified as

segments that modify or support the main words. Therefore, every word or phrase in the above

two sentences supports some part of “ornaments,” “glimmer,” “authors,” or “plead.” A clause

consists of the two (or three) core clause words, and any number of associated modifying words,

phrases, and segments that rest upon these two core words. This is the segment known as the

clause. The only higher segment in called the sentence, in which you may start to combine a

whole bunch of clauses, with their supporting words and phrases of various design. They can

become wildly complex, but always rely on the same simple underlying patterns.

The definition of the clause is the combination of a main noun, with a main verb in a

direct connection forming a core statement. Any time a noun is associated with a verb in this

way, it is said to be the “grammatical subject” of the verb. In the second example above there is

also a grammatical “object,” namely the word “difficulty.” The clause is this two or three word

core of every sentence. In these sentences the very core clause words are bolded:

The original proposal to provide the N.I.C.E with a ‘police force’ of its own was

rejected with disgust by the members on the floor.

Twenty-five kilobytes of information about the geological composition of the planet

were transmitted to the main computer to be processed within a week.

Respect for our rights at home, security against similar future violations, and power to

repel these violent attacks, these are our strength in a time of international

turbulence.

To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe, struggling in the bonds of

misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them in their times of need.

- 141 -

I sit by myself in the lamplight with an ancient book before me, and hold intimate

converse with men of unseen generations.

A noun which connects directly to a verb and performs the action of that verb is designated as

the “subject” of that verb and of that clause. There may be any number of nouns in a sentence,

but the “subject” designation applies only to the one or two nouns which are in close association

with the verb.

In identifying the clause, we are identifying the underlying “subject and verb”

combination. These “subject-verb” combinations, and sometimes “subject-verb-object”

combinations, are bolded in the sentences below:

The study of perspicuity requires attention, first, to single words and phrases, and then

to the construction of sentences.

The above discussion of style relates chiefly to the choice of words.

The least failure in clearness, the least degree of ambiguity, which leaves the mind in

any sort of suspense about the meaning, should be avoided with the greatest care.

In some clauses, a noun following the verb is also bolded. A noun in this relation to the core

clause is called an “object” (with the proviso that the object is optional). So, there are some

further complications that we must talk about. Nonetheless, if you pick out the bolded words,

you will see that they do form the root mini-sentences. “Study -- requires -- attention” presents

no problems. “The” is simply an article or small modifier attached directly to “study.” This

leaves a few words left over: “first” and “and then,” which can be explained as connecting words

which join the prepositional phrases to each other. Since we have crossed out the phrases, it is

logically justified to disregard the conjunctions that join these phrases.

The definition of the clause is very specific. A clause occurs where there is a key noun

- 142 -

which links directly to a verb to form a core statement. This part of clause analysis is completely

regular and consistent. However, this basis can be elaborated in several ways. One variation is

to have a compound subject; another is to have a compound verb; and another would be to have

both compound. There can be embedded and hidden clauses. We will begin to deal with the

more elaborate, multiple-clause sentences in the pages ahead.

For the next exercise, your task is to find the clauses in the sentences on the worksheet

below. However, please do not use any graphical marking for these sentences. Instead, I am

asking you to underline certain conjunctions in the sentences. In all of the examples, there are

multiple clauses. They all go “subject – verb – (object)” plus “subject – verb – (object).” Your

task is to find the “plus.” Between every two clauses there has to be a clause conjunction joining

them together. The only way to find and underline the correct words (please see key) is to see

where the mini-sentences are, and to see which word is joining them.

- 143 -

Independent and

Dependent Clauses

In the previous part we talked about the forms that a clause can take. But in every case we were

always choosing to look at an example of a simple sentence, and hence we were seeing only one

clause taken at a time; in these cases the clause and the sentence are exactly coterminous.

Even if some of our sentences were fairly complicated, still at center each of the above

has just one clause. In this chapter we will talk about the next level of complication. What

happens when you add to the clause structure by combining several individual clauses together?

A clause can often be a sentence in itself. However, a sentence is, in the structural sense,

a larger container than a clause. A sentence must contain a minimum of one clause; but it can

also contain several clauses. The result of this combination is a multi-clause sentence, a sentence

comprised of several clauses within and attached to each other in various ways. Such

combinations happen in language on a regular basis. They are in fact the norm in sentences

spoken or written in everyday English.

Whereas the simple sentence is a sentence with only one core clause, compound and

complex sentences take place when several clauses all connect together to form one larger

sentence. These are sentences with more than one clause. In addition to the several clauses,

larger sentences contain an important structure word known as a clause conjunction. In fact, it is

a rule in grammar that every time a person adds a second, third or other clause to a sentence, that

person needs to include and use a clause conjunction in order to integrate that new clause into the

sentence. Every new clause is linked into the sentence via a clause conjunction.

The basic structure will be as follows:

- 144 -

noun--verb--(object) CONJUNCTION noun--verb--(object).

Any two basic clauses can be joined together in this way, to form what is naturally designated as

a compound sentence. (To compound in grammar means to double up.) Here is an important

rule: every time a second or subsequent clause is added to a sentence, there must be a

conjunction to join it in with. Conjunctions include words like “and,” “but,” “or,” “yet,” and

“for,” as well as words like “therefore,” “moreover,” and “nevertheless.” The pattern results in

sentences which are structured in this way, with two sentences joined at the center:

We sent the letters, BUT the post office failed to deliver them;

She took them to the zoo ( WHEN I gave the needed permission.)

Note that there is a full sentence both before and after the clause conjunctions.

One note of caution is that even though the above words are conjunctions, they do not always act

as “clause conjunctions.” In our analysis, I am asking you to underline only clause conjunctions,

not every occurrence of a conjunction. This is because the clause conjunctions operate at the

highest level, and I am asking you to view the structure of the sentences in this “big picture”

way.

A conjunction word like “and” can act as a conjunction for any two elements of a

sentence. You can use “and” to join a word to a word, a phrase to a phrase, a clause to a clause,

or a sentence to a sentence. It is only when a conjunction is used to join a clause to a clause that

we call it a “clause conjunction.” In the following sentence for example, the first “and” is acting

as a word conjunction between “Jim” and “Terry”; the second “and” is a clause conjunction;

while the third “and” is a conjunction joining two phrases, “in the sunshine” and “in the rain”:

Jim and Terry went camping, and they had a great time, both in the sunshine and in the

rain.

- 145 -

This structure also happens to be an idea illustration of the grammatical principle of

cluster unity. Consider the function of the last “and” in the above sentence. What does it join?

It’s a conjunction, so it must join something. But you wouldn’t say it joins the previous word to

the following word: it doesn’t join “sunshine” to “in” the way the first one joins “Jim” to

“Terry.” So what does it actually join?

I think that the only way to answer this is to say that it joins the whole phrase “in the

sunshine” to the whole phrase “in the rain.” There’s nothing else for it to join. It does not join

any individual words to each other. It certainly does not join the word before it to the word after

it like “and” so often does. It joins the two phrases as units. And because a conjunction must

join two things (that’s its definition), the two phrases that it joins must be two things. They are

things in themselves. Do not be deceived! It’s not three words: it’s one phrase.

***

- 146 -

Further Studies into Dependent

and Independent Clauses

The final concept that we need to understand for sentence structure analysis is the concept of

independent versus the dependent clauses. Both types of clause, independent and dependent, fit

the same “subject and verb” structure.

A clause consists of a subject word that connects directly to a verb, thereby forming a

mini-statement.

However, not all clauses can act as a sentence. Only some can. Those clauses that can

act as sentences all by themselves are called independent clauses. Those clauses which cannot

stand alone as sentences, but which must be attached to another independent clause, are called

dependent clauses.

There is no difference in the basic ingredients: both types of clause contain the same

subject-verb combination.

But the dependent clauses are ones which clearly do not constitute a sentence by

themselves. To be punctuated properly, these dependent clauses must be linked back to a free-

standing independent clause at some point.

These clauses are designated as dependent because they cannot stand alone as a sentence;

therefore, they must be attached to, or “depend on,” another sentence. Dependent clauses are in

one sense similar to prepositional phrases: they act as another type of “add-on” and they also

build up parts into a complicated sentence.

There are a few issues which also makes the analysis of clauses tricky at times. Let us

look again at the sentences from the Hugh Blair worksheet above.

In the first four sentences, the core clauses are easy to identify. They constitute

- 147 -

everything that remains behind when we ignore the phrase segments. Please read the underlined

segments in the following sentences, and hopefully you will agree that each one stands, and

could stand alone as a sentence:

Perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style, a quality so essential in every kind of

writing, that, for the lack of it, nothing can atone.

Without perspicuity, the richest ornaments of style only glimmer through the dark.

Authors sometimes plead the difficulty of their subject, as an excuse for the lack of

perspicuity.

The study of perspicuity requires attention, first, to single words and phrases, and then to

the construction of sentences.

In these four sentences, the outlines of the central clauses, and these are all independent clauses,

appear for easy observation.

However, in the fifth sentence, below, we run into some significant problems. In this

sentence, there are left over segments that do not seem to form clear mini-sentences. There are

certain segments which we must develop theories for, namely the segments: “that belong,”

“which we speak,” “that are imported,” and “that are obsolete.” All of these segments are

clauses which do not show a clear case of a mini-sentence:

Purity is the use of words and constructions that belong to the idiom of the language

which we speak; in opposition to words and phrases that are imported from other

languages, or that are obsolete, or new-coined, or used without proper authority.

One problem occurs in cases where the subject of the clause takes the form of a pronoun.

It is not a regular noun, as in the clause “we belong.” In this clause, “we” is the noun and it takes

the verb “belong.” But what if you change “we” to another type of noun called a pronoun, such

- 148 -

as “that” or “which”? Then you end up with one of the clauses in the above sentence: “that

belong.” Just as “we belong” is a noun and verb working together to form a core statement, so

does “that belong” work in exactly the same way. But because the “we” has been reduced down

to a conjunctive pronoun, the noun-verb combination is hidden. “That” and “which” are still

nouns and they can still take a verb like “belong.” You will still have a noun and a verb that go

together to form a core statement (the definition of a clause). So you will still have a clause.

But will you have a sentence? Are “that belong” and “which belong” sentences? Clearly

not. “We follow” is a sentence, but not “that” or “which.”

This kind of clause can be hard to notice, and they don’t often look like very much when

you do find them. Here is an example:

The chapters that follow constitute a history of England.

This sentence contains two clauses. The noun which connects to the verb constitute is

“chapters.” “The chapters constitute.” But the noun for the verb follow is actually the word

“that.” So you get “that follow.” Just as “the chapters constitute” is a clause, so also are the

words “that follow” a clause. They still fit the definition: a key noun (“that”) which connects

directly to a key verb (“follow”) to form a core statement: “that follow.” The word “that” is a

pronoun. A pronoun is also a type of noun, and, when used within the clause structure, is

capable of connecting to a verb. Therefore, the structure of “that follow” has, by definition, the

elements of a clause; therefore, it is a clause. Likewise “which we speak,” “that are imported,”

and “that are obsolete” all contain the elements of a clause, but in a reduced form, and therefore

they are hidden clauses. The grammatical name for these hidden clauses is “dependent clauses.”

***

The distinction between dependent and independent clauses relates specifically to the type of

- 149 -

clause conjunction that starts the clause. Every time there is another clause added to a sentence,

there is always a clause conjunction used to connect it in. Furthermore, clause conjunctions fall

into two groups; one results in independent clauses and the other results in dependent clauses.

Take the first example below. The clause starts out as independent. It is both a clause

and a sentence: “Perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style.” However, this same segment

ceases to be a sentence in the subsequent examples. Each time you put a conjunction of a certain

type in front of an independent sentence, you turn it into a dependent clause fragment. This

change from sentence to non-sentence (even though both are clauses) shows the radical effect of

clause conjunctions. A clause conjunction has the power to transform an independent sentence

into a mere fragment. We see this happening in all of the examples that follow.

Perhaps the reason for this radical change is to be found in the connective implication of

the clause conjunction. A conjunction is by nature a connector; and having a connector implies

having two things to connect. But if you have only one thing with a connector, what happens

then? Then, you have established a connection but there’s only one thing present! You have

created a contradictory structure, a nonsense structure. If only one thing is actually present, then

the “connection” is inherently fragmented. This may be the underlying reality behind the

grammar rule against sentence fragments.

Note how the sentence becomes a fragment when the word in italics (the clause

conjunction) is added:

Sentence:

Perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style.

Fragments:

although perspicuity is the fundamental quality

- 150 -

if perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style

while perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style

when perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style

since perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style

because perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style

unless perspicuity be the fundamental quality of style

before perspicuity may be the fundamental quality

how perspicuity may become the fundamental quality

whether perspicuity be the fundamental quality

which is the fundamental quality of style

The first example above – “Perspicuity is the fundamental quality of style” – is both a clause and

a sentence. All of the subsequent examples are still clauses, because they still have the subject-

verb combination. However, none of them any longer qualifies as a sentence. You would never

start one of them with a capital letter and put a period at the end. That would never happen. All

of them have gone from independent to dependent clauses. In each case, the change is caused by

the type of conjunction added to front of the clause.

All of the words in italics above are clause conjunctions. These clause conjunctions

above can be further classified as dependent clause conjunctions, because they all render the

clause into dependent. There is another, smaller group of clause conjunctions which are said not

to render fragments. These are called independent clause conjunctions. In our analysis, I am

asking you to underline all clause conjunctions. But for the bracketing of dependent clauses,

please bracket only those clauses which start with one of the dependent clause conjunctions. If

we cross out the phrases and bracket the dependent clause conjunctions, we will in every case

- 151 -

reveal the underlying independent clause(s) of the sentence.

This additional set of conjunctions, the independents with no bracketing, consist of

“and,” “but,” “or,” “yet,” “so,” “for,” and the semi-colon and colon. In the case of the

independent clause conjunctions, the two clauses are still joined into one sentence, but both

clauses are considered to remain independent. The definition of a dependent clause conjunction

is a conjunction that joins two clauses and renders one of them dependent. The definition of an

independent clause conjunction is a conjunction that joins two clauses and both of them remain

independent.

Why the need for two sets of conjunctions? Grammarians deduced that the relationships

established are different. “Because” joins one clause to another in the relation of cause and

effect, which is a dependent relation. The two are not equal; the effect depends on the cause; the

one supports the other. “Although” joins one incident in spite of another, another dependent

relation. “If” makes the existence of one clause contingent on the occurrence of another, again a

dependency. But “and”? What relationship does “and” establish? Grammarians thought that

“and” was different. It establishes a neutral relationship. You can’t say that one of the clauses

has been rendered into the service of the other. This is the reasoning behind the idea of two

types of clause conjunctions, and the idea that one type creates dependent clauses. Here are three

sentences which grammatically have the exact same clause structure, two clauses joined by a

coordinating conjunction and a third clause joined by a subordinating conjunction. In these, the

dependent clauses are underlined:

We will go to the store and we will buy some ice cream, which will be chocolate and

raspberry for sure.

We will visit the zoo or we will go swimming, which will be even better.

- 152 -

We have made the arrangements so the party can get going, although it will be started

late.

Here is a set of examples of dependent clauses, in parentheses:

(Because Shelly left school late ,) she missed the bus .

I will fix dinner (if you are hungry .)

(Since he didn't try out for a part ,) he won't be in the play .

We will start the movie (when Tony and Maria arrive . )

(If that coat goes on sale ,) I will buy it .

The band members celebrated (because the band won first place .)

Rick admires the man (who coaches his team . )

We will elect the candidate (who knows the issues .)

The witness told the police (what she had seen .)

Hank's Restaurant is closed (while the owner looks for a new cook .)

(After the party was over ,) we cleaned up and went to bed .

Please take this to the woman (who lives next door .)

I am so glad (that you made the team .)

Ask the girl (who is standing by the fence .)

(If the manager is unable to help ,) try the assistant manager .

The man (whose neck was broken) has recovered completely .

The scientist said (that the ozone levels were dangerous .)

The city council objected (when the mayor changed his mind .)

It is unfortunate (that Mr . Jones will not return .)

- 153 -

Prepositional Phrase Parsing:

The boy in the bubble plays on his harp in the mornings .

Embedded and Aligned Arrangements:

Suzi Queen travels to the beach in a jet boat .

Suzi Queen travels to the beach in Belize .

Verbal Phrase Parsing:

Broken down by the elements, the jalopy was half sunk in the ground .

Breaking fifty, the jalopy rattled across the finish line .

The pit crew have a goal, and that goal is to win the next derby .

Independent Clause Parsing:

It was a beautiful day and it was our first anniversary .

Dependent Clause Parsing:

It was a beautiful day when it was our first anniversary .

- 154 -

Answer Keys

- 155 -

Bibliography of Grammar,

Universal Grammar in Particular

Spencer, Herbert. The Philosophy of Style. (1852). The Floating Press, 2009.

Smith, Adam. “Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages.” Lectures on

Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. The Liberty Fund.

Beattie, James. "Of Universal Grammar." Section II, The Theory of Language. 1788 rpt. in

Dissertations Moral and Critical, 1783, 1968, 1974.

Blair, Hugh. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, 1783, 1785. Rpt. New York: Garland,

1970.

Burnett, James, Lord Monboddo. Of the Origin and Progress of Language. Edinburgh, 1774-

1792.

Bursill-Hall, G. L. "Medieval Grammatical Theories." Canadian Journal of Linguistics IX 1963

40-54.

Harris, James. Hermes or A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Universal Grammar 1751 1771.

Kaye, F. B. "Mandeville on the Origin of Language." MLN 39 1924:136-42.

Padley, G. A. Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1985.

Smith, Adam. "Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages." In Lectures on

Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Ed. J. C. Bryce. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983:203-226.

Smith, Adam. "Of the Origin and Progress of Language." Lecture 3, Lectures on Rhetoric and

Belles Lettres. Ed. J. C. Bryce. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983:9-13.

Uitti, Karl D. Linguistics and Literary Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

"Universal Grammar." Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771.

- 156 -

Kuncklehead Books, copyright 2013