“Two pillars stood together; the rest had fallen to the ground.  The one on the right was quite perfect in all its parts.  The other resembled it very much, except it had lost its capital, and suffered some other injuries.”  How could the latter column, while performing no action in standing, act transitively, according to our grammars, and do something to resemble the other? or, what did it do to lose its capital, and suffer other injury?

* * *

“To lie, or lay.”

It has been admitted that the verbs before considered are often used as active verbs, and that there is, in truth, action expressed by them.  But when the man has fallen from his seat and lies upon the floor, it is contended that he no longer acts, and that lie expresses no action.  He has ceased from physical, muscular action regulated by his will, and is now subject to the common laws which govern matter.

Let us take a strong example.  The book lies or lays on the desk.  Now you ask, does that book perform any action in laying on the desk?  I answer, yes; and I will prove it on the principles of the soundest philosophy, to the satisfaction of every one present.  Nor will I deviate from existing grammars to do it, so far as real action is concerned.

The book lies on the desk.  The desk supports the book.  Will you parse supports?  It is, according to every system, an active transitive verb.  It has an objective case after it on which the action terminates.  But what does the desk do to support the book?  It barely resists the action which the book performs in lying on it.  The action of the desk and book is reciprocal.  But if the book does not act, neither can the desk act, for that only repels the force of the book in pressing upon it in its tendency towards the earth, in obedience to the law of gravitation.  And yet our authors have told us that the desk is active in resisting no action of the book!  No wonder people are unable to understand grammar.  It violates the first principles of natural science, and frames to itself a code of laws, unequal, false, and exceptionable, which bear no affinity to the rest of the world, and will not apply in the expression of ideas.

I was once lecturing on this subject in one of the cities of New-York.  Mrs. W., the distinguished teacher of one of the most popular Female Seminaries in our country, attended.  At the close of one lecture she remarked that the greatest fault she had discovered in the new system, was the want of a class of words to express neutrality.  Children, she said, conceived ideas of things in a quiescent state, and words should be taught them by which to communicate such ideas.  I asked her for an example.  She gave the rock in the side of the mountain.  It had never moved.  It could never act.  There it had been from the foundation of the earth, and there it would remain unaltered and unchanged till time should be no longer.  I remarked, that I would take another small stone and lay it on the great one which could never act, and now we say the great rock upholds, sustains or supports the small one—­all active transitive verbs with an object expressed.