FOOTNOTES: 

[1] Ben Jonson’s notion of grammar, and of its parts, was as follows:  “Grammar is the art of true and well-speaking a language:  the writing is but an accident.

The Parts of Grammar are

    Etymology \ which is / the true notation of words,
    Syntaxe / \ the right ordering of them.

A word is a part of speech or note, whereby a thing is known or called; and consisteth of one or more letters.  A letter is an indivisible part of a syllable, whose prosody, or right sounding, is perceived by the power; the orthography, or right writing, by the form.  Prosody, and Orthography, are not parts of grammar, but diffused, like blood and spirits, through the whole.”—­Jonson’s Grammar, Book I.

[2] Horne Tooke eagerly seized upon a part of this absurdity, to prove that Dr. Lowth, from whom Murray derived the idea, was utterly unprepared for what he undertook in the character of a grammarian:  “Dr. Lowth, when he undertook to write his Introduction, with the best intention in the world, most assuredly sinned against his better judgment.  For he begins most judiciously, thus—­’Universal grammar explains the principles which are common to all languages.  The grammar of any particular language, applies those common principles to that particular language.’  And yet, with this clear truth before his eyes, he boldly proceeds to give a particular grammar; without being himself possessed of one single principle of universal grammar.”—­Diversions of Purley, Vol. 1, p. 224.  If Dr. Lowth discredited his better judgement in attempting to write an English grammar, perhaps Murray, and his weaker copyists, have little honoured theirs, in supposing they were adequate to such a work.  But I do not admit, that either Lowth or Murray “begins most judiciously,” in speaking of Universal and Particular grammar in the manner above cited.  The authors who have started with this fundamental blunder, are strangely numerous.  It is found in some of the most dissimilar systems that can be named.  Even Oliver B. Peirce, who has a much lower opinion of Murray’s ability in grammar than Tooke had of Lowth’s, adopts this false notion with all implicitness, though he decks it in language more objectionable, and scorns to acknowledge whence he got it.  See his Gram., p. 16.  De Suey, in his Principles of General Grammar, says, “All rules of Syntax relate to two things, Agreement and Government.”—­Foxdick’s Tr., p. 108.  And again:  “None of these rules properly belong to General Grammar, as each language follows, in regard to the rules of Agreement and Government, a course peculiar to itself.”—­Ibid., p. 109.”  “It is with Construction [i.e., Arrangement] as with Syntax.  It follows no general rule common to all languages.”—­Ibid. According to these positions, which I do not admit to be strictly true, General or Universal Grammar has no principles of Syntax at all, whatever else it may have which Particular Grammar can assume and apply.