21.  FIRST DEFINITION:—­“An Article is a word prefixed to substantives, to point them out, and to show how far their[68] signification extends.”—­Murray, and others, from, Lowth’s Gram., p. 10.  This is obscure.  In what manner, or in what respect, does an article point out substantives?  To point them out as such, or to show which words are substantives, seems at first view to be the meaning intended; but it is said soon after, “A or an is used in a vague sense, to point out one single thing of the kind, in other respects indeterminate; as, ’Give me a book;’ ‘Bring me an apple.’”—­Lowth, p. 11; Murray, p. 31.  And again:  “It is of the nature of both the articles to determine or limit the thing spoken of.”—­Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 170.  Now to point out nouns among the parts of speech, and to point out things as individuals of their class, are very different matters; and which of these is the purpose for which articles are used, according to Lowth and Murray?  Their definition says the former, their explanations imply the latter; and I am unable to determine which they really meant.  The term placed before would have been better than “prefixed;” because the latter commonly implies junction, as well as location.  The word “indeterminate” is not a very easy one for a boy; and, when he has found out what it means, he may possibly not know to which of the four preceding nouns it ought to be referred:—­“in a vague sense, to point out one single thing of the kind, in other respects indeterminate.”  What is this “vague sense?” and what is it, that is “indeterminate?”

22.  SECOND DEFINITION:—­“A Substantive or Noun is the name of any thing that exists, or of which we have any notion.”—­Murray, and others.  According to his own syntax, this sentence of Murray’s is wrong; for he himself suggests, that when two or more relative clauses refer to the same antecedent, the same pronoun should be used in each.  Of clauses connected like these, this is true.  He should therefore have said, “A Substantive, or Noun, is the name of any thing which exists, or of which we have any notion.”  His rule, however, though good against a text like this, is utterly wrong in regard to many others, and not very accurate in taking two for a “series” thus:  “Whatever relative is used, in one of a series of clauses relating to the same antecedent, the same relative ought, generally to be used in them all.  In the following sentence, this rule is violated:  ’It is remarkable, that Holland, against which the war was undertaken, and that, in the very beginning, was reduced to the brink of destruction, lost nothing.’  The clause ought to have been, ’and which in the very beginning.’”—­Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 155.  But both the rule and the example, badly as they correspond, were borrowed from Priestley’s Grammar, p. 102, where the text stands thus:  “Whatever relative be used, in one of a series of clauses, relating to the same antecedent, the same ought to be used in them all.  ’It is remarkable, that Holland,’” &c.