“Parsing” spoken of in the second sentence, is Syntactical Parsing only; and, without a limitation of the species, neither this assertion nor the one concerning precedence is sufficiently true.  Again, the suggestion, that, “Analysis consists in pointing out the words or groups of words which constitute the elements of a sentence,” has nothing distinctive in it; and, without some idea of the author’s peculiar system of “elements,” previously impressed upon the mind, is scarcely, if at all, intelligible.  Lastly, that a pupil must understand a sentence,—­or, what is the same thing, “learn the force of the words combined,”—­before he can be sure of parsing each word rightly, is a very plain and certain truth; but what “advantage” over parsing this truth gives to the lesser analysis, which deals with “groups,” it is not easy to discover.  If the author had any clear idea of “this advantage,” he has conveyed no such conception to his readers.

OBS. 11.—­Greene’s Analysis is the most expanded form of the Third Method above.[333] Its nucleus, or germinating kernel, was the old partition of subject and predicate, derived from the art of logic.  Its chief principles may be briefly stated thus:  Sentences, which are simple, or complex, or compound, are made up of words, phrases, and clauses—­three grand classes of elements, called the first, the second, and the third class.  From these, each sentence must have two elements; the Subject, or Substantive element, and the Predicate, or Predicative element, which are principal; and a sentence may have five, the subordinates being the Adjective element, the Objective element, and the Adverbial element.  The five elements have sundry modifications and subdivisions.  Each of the five may, like a sentence, be simple, or complex, or compound; and each may be of any of the three grand classes.  The development of this scheme forms a volume, not small.  The system is plausible, ingenious, methodical, mostly true, and somewhat elaborate; but it is neither very useful nor very accurate.  It seems too much like a great tree, beautiful, symmetrical, and full of leaves, but raised or desired only for fruit, yet bearing little, and some of that little not of good quality, but knurly or bitter.  The chief end of a grammar, designed for our tongue, is, to show what is, and what is not, good English.  To this end, the system in question does not appear to be well adapted.

OBS. 12.—­Dr. Bullions, the projector of the “Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on the same plan,” inserted in his Latin Grammar, of 1841, a short sketch of the new analysis by “subjects and predicates,” “grammatical and logical,” the scheme used by Andrews and Stoddard; but his English Grammar, which appeared in 1834, was too early for this “new and improved method of investigating” language.