In his later English Grammar, of 1849, however, paying little regard to sameness of “plan” or conformity of definitions, he carefully devoted to this matter the space of fifteen pages, placing the topic, not injudiciously, in the first part of his syntax, and referring to it thus in his Preface:  “The subject of ANALYSIS, wholly omitted in the former work, is here introduced in its proper place; and to an extent in accordance with its importance.”—­ Bullions, Analyt. and Pract.  Gram., p. 3.

OBS. 13.—­In applying any of the different methods of analysis, as a school exercise, it will in general perhaps be best to use each separately; the teacher directing which one is to be applied, and to what examples.  The selections prepared for the stated praxes of this work, will be found as suitable as any.  Analysis of sentences is a central and essential matter in the teaching or the study of grammar; but the truest and the most important of the sentential analyses is parsing; which, because it is a method distinguished by a technical name of its own, is not commonly denominated analysis.  The relation which other methods should bear to parsing, is, as we have seen, variously stated by different authors. Etymological parsing and Syntactical are, or ought to be, distinct exercises.  The former, being the most simple, the most elementary, and also requisite to be used before the pupil is prepared for the latter, should, without doubt, take precedence of all the rest, and be made familiar in the first place.  Those who say, “Analysis should precede parsing,” will scarcely find the application of other analysis practicable, till this is somewhat known.  But Syntactical Parsing being, when complete in form, the most thorough process of grammatical resolution, it seems proper to have introduced the other methods before it, as above.  It can hardly be said that any of these are necessary to this exercise, or to one an other; yet in a full course of grammatical instruction, each may at times be usefully employed.

OBS. 14.—­Dr. Bullions suggests, that, “Analysis should precede Syntactical parsing, because, till we know the parts and elements of a sentence, we can not understand their relations, nor intelligently combine them into one consistent whole.”—­Analytical and Pract.  Gram., p. 114.  This reason is entirely fictitious and truthless; for the words of a sentence are intuitively known to be its “parts and elements;” and, to “understand their relations,” is as necessary to one form of analysis as to another; but, “intelligently to combine them,” is no part of the parser’s duty:  this belongs to the writer; and where he has not done it, he must be criticised and censured, as one that knows not well what he says.  In W. Allen’s Grammar, as in Wells’s, Syntactical parsing and Etymological are not divided.  Wells intersperses his “Exercises in Parsing,”