in this age, be comprehended as the medium
of thought. Were this method to prevail,
our present literal language would become a dead letter.
Of what avail is language, if it can not be understood?
And how can it be accommodated to the understanding,
unless it receive the sanction of common consent?
Even if we admit that such a manner of unfolding the
principles of our language, is more rational and correct
than the ordinary, practical method, I think it
is clear that such a mode of investigation and
development, does not meet the necessities and convenience
of ordinary learners in school. To be consistent,
that system which instructs by tracing a few of
our words to their origin, must unfold the whole
in the same manner. But the student in common
schools and academies, cannot afford time to stem the
tide of language up to its source, and there dive
to the bottom of the fountain for knowledge.
Such labor ought not to be required of him. His
object is to become, not a philosophical antiquarian,
but a practical grammarian. If I comprehend
the design (if they have any) of our modern philosophical
writers on this subject, it is to make grammarians
by inculcating a few general principles, arising out
of the genius of the language, and the nature
of things, which the learner, by the exercise
of his reasoning powers, must reduce to practice.
His own judgment, independent of grammar rules,
is to be his guide in speaking and writing correctly.
Hence, many of them exclude from their systems,
all exercises in what is called false Syntax.
But these profound philological dictators appear to
have overlooked the important consideration, that
the great mass of mankind, and especially of boys
and girls in common schools, can never become
philosophers; and, consequently, can never comprehend
and reduce to practice their metaphysical and obscure
systems of grammar. I wish to see children
treated as reasoning beings. But there
should be a medium in all things. It is, therefore,
absurd to instruct children as if they were already
profound philosophers and logicians.
To demonstrate the utility, and enforce the necessity, of exercising the learner in correcting false Syntax, I need no other argument than the interesting and undeniable fact, that Mr. Murray’s labors, in this department, have effected a complete revolution in the English language, in point of verbal accuracy. Who does not know, that the best writers of this day, are not guilty of one grammatical inaccuracy, where those authors who wrote before Mr. Murray flourished, are guilty of five? And what has produced this important change for the better? Ask the hundreds of thousands who have studied “Mr. Murray’s exercises in FALSE SYNTAX.” If, then, this view of the subject is correct, it follows, that the greater portion of our philosophical grammars, are far more worthy the attention of literary connoisseurs,