774 G R A M M A R. 
way of throwino- the accent open the preceding-; and it 
is upon this principle tliat we write “ offered ” and 
“referred,” “ profi/cd ” and “omitted.” This then 
appears tlie groui'id of difcrimination ; that (generally 
fpeaking) an accented fyllahle requires a double, ar.d 
an unaccented a fuigle, confonant: a rule \vliich might 
lead tis to differ in Tome indances from common ufage, 
but in none from propriety : it would lead us to write 
“ bridevve/, wateriV/, dunghi/, handfu/; forete//, mif- 
ca/A” It would lead us to recall the d in alle^/ge and 
piisfgeon ; but to leave it out as ufual in college and 
knowlege. Attention to pronunciation, and to the divi- 
fion of fyllables, w-ould alone be fufricient to make the 
clifion very improper in “chargeable, manageable,” See. 
and perf| icuity requires it to be avoided in “fingeing,” 
the participle of Jingc. 
Of syntax. 
The Englifli tongue pofTefl'es, undoubtedly, this pro¬ 
perty, that it is the moft fimple in its form and con- 
ltru6iion of all the fiuropean dialefts. Its words are 
lubject to fewer variations from their original form 
than thofe of any other language. Its fubftantives have 
no dillinCfion of gender, except what nature has made, 
and but one variation in cafe. Its adjedlives admit of 
no change at all, except what exprefles the degree of 
t'omparilon. Its verbs, inflcad of running tlirough all 
the varieties of ancient conjugation, fiifter jio more than 
lour or five changes in termination. By the help of a 
lew prepofitions and auxiliary verbs, all the purpofes 
of lignificancy in meaning are accomplifhed ; while the 
words, for the moft part, preferve their foi in unchanged. 
The difad vantages in point of elegance, brevity, and 
force, which follow from this ftrutture of our language, 
I'lave been before pointed out. But, at the f.ime time. 
It nuift be admitted, that fuch a flrticture contributes 
to facility ; it renders the acquilition of our language 
lefs laboi ious, tlie arrangement of our words more jdain 
and obvious, the rules of our I'yntax fewer and moi'e 
fimple. We agree, indeed,with Dr. Lowth, (Preface 
to his Grammar,) in thinking that the fimplicity and 
facility of our language occafion its being frequently 
written and fpoken with lefs accuracy. It was necelfary 
to fhidy languages, which were of a more complex and 
artificial form, with greater care. The marks of gen¬ 
der and cafe, tlie varieties of conjugation and declen- 
lion, the multiplied rules of fyntax, were all to be at¬ 
tended to in Ipeecli. Hence language became more an 
objett of art. It was reduced into form ; a ftandard 
was efiablifhed, and any departure from the ftandard 
became confpicuous. Whereas, among us, language is 
hardly conlidered as an objedt of grammatical rule. 
We take it for granted, that a competent ikill in it may 
be acquired witliout any ftudy ; and that, in a fyntax lo 
narrow and confined as ours, there is nothing w hich de¬ 
mands attention. Hence arifes the habit of writing in a 
loofe and inaccurate manner. For perhaps no gramma¬ 
tical rules have lufficient authority to controul the firm 
and eftabliilied ufage of language. Eilablilhed cuftom, 
in fpeaking and writing, is the fiandard to which we 
muff at iafl rel'ort for determining every controverted 
point in language and flyle. But it will not follow from 
this, that grammatical rules are fuperfeded as ufelefs. 
In every language, which has been in any degree culti¬ 
vated, there prevails a certain ftrudtiire and analogy of 
parts, wliich is undei Rood' to give foundation to the 
moft reputable ufage of f peech; and which, in all cafes, 
■when ufage is loofe or tiubious, poll'elfes coniiderable 
authority. In every language, there are rules of lyp-tafi 
■which uiiift be inviolably obferved by all who would 
cither write or fpeak with any propriety. For fyntax 
is no other than tliat arrangement of words, in a len- 
tence, which rendeis the meaning of eacii word, and 
the relation of all the words to one anothe/, moil clear 
a-iid iaielligible. 
All the rules of Latin fyntax, it is true, cannot be 
applied to our language. Many of thefe rules arof'e 
from the par icuhu ‘b'-m of their language, Which occa- 
lioned veibs or prepofitions to govern, fome the geni¬ 
tive, f. me the d tive, fome the accufative or ablative, 
cafe. But, abftratling from thefe , peculiarities, it is 
to be always remembered, that the chief and funda¬ 
mental rules of fyntax are common to the Englifti as 
well as the Latin tongue; and, indeed, belong equally 
to all languages. For, in all l.inguages, the parts whieik 
compofe fpeech are elfentially > he fame ; fubftantives, 
adjebtives, verbs, and conn cling particles : and wlier- 
ever thelc parts of fpeech are tound, tliere are certain 
necelfary relations among them, tvhich regulate their 
fynlax, or the place which, they ought to pofT'efs in a 
fentence. 'I'h.us, in Englilh, juft as much as in Latin, 
the adjebtive mull, by polition, be m.:de to agree with 
its fubftantive; and tl-:e verb mufl agree with its nomi¬ 
native in perfon and number; becaufe, from the nature 
of things, a word, which expreffes either a quality or 
an action, mult correfpond as clofely as poflible with 
the name of th.at thing whofe quality, or whole aition, 
it expreffes. Two or more fubfiantives, joined by a 
copulative, mufl alvv.iys require tlie verbs or pronouns, 
to which th.ey refer, to be placed in tlie plural number;, 
otherwife, their common relation to thefe verbs or pro¬ 
nouns is not pointed out. An active verb mufl, in every 
language, govern the accufative; tliat is, clearly point 
oiit fomb fubftantive noun, as tiie object to wliich its. 
abtion is directed. A relative pronoun mult, in every 
form of fpeech, agree with its antecedent in geiidCr, 
number, and perfon; and conjunctions, or connetSting 
particles, ought .ilways to couple like cafes and moods; 
that is, ought to join togeilier words whitli are of the 
fame form and llate with eacli othei'. The rule for the 
prepofition, and thole for fome orJier of the parts of 
fpeech, may be gatlieied from the foregoing dilquifttions 
on the noun, verb, &c. 
Whatever the advantages or defects of the Englifh 
language be, as it is our own language, it delerves a 
high degree of our ftudy and attention, both witli regard 
to the choice of words whicli we employ, and with re¬ 
gard to the fyntax, or tlie arrangement of tiiefe words 
in a fentence. We know how much the Greeks and the 
Romans, in tlieir mull polifhed and flourifliing times, 
cultivated their own tongues. NVe know how much 
ftudy both tiie French and the Italians have beftowed 
upon theirs. Whatever knowledge may be acquired by 
the ftudy of other languages, it can never be communi¬ 
cated with advantage, unlefs by Inch as can write and 
fpeak their own language well. Let the matter of an 
author be ever lo good and ufcful, his conij o.litiotis will 
always I'utler in the public efteem, if his exprellion be 
deficient in purity and propriety. The many errors, 
even in point of grammar, the many offences againft: 
purity of lang'uage, which are committed by writers 
who are far from being contemp-ible, demonllrate, that 
a careful ftudy of the language is previoufly requilitc, 
in all \yho aim at writing it properly. .On this InbjeO, 
tlie reader ought to penile Dr. Lowth’s Short Intrc- 
duCti.on to Englilh Grammar, witli Criiical Notes; wliicit 
is the grammatical performance of higheft .luthority that 
has appeared in our time, and in vvhicli he will fee, w’liat 
lias been laid concerning the inaccuracies in language of 
lonie of our bell writers, fully verified. In Dr. Camp¬ 
bell’s Piiilolophy of Rhetoric, he v/ill likewil'e find 
many acute and ingenious obfervations, both on the 
Englifli language, and on, llyle in general. And Dr. 
Prieftley’s Rudiments of Engli'fli Grammar will alio be 
ul'eful, by pointing out I'everal of the errors into which- 
writers are apt tafalll 
Of PROSODY, 
Prosody comprifes orthoepy , or tlie riilfes of proniin- 
ciation; and orthomstryf or the laws of verlilication. 
Pronupt- 
