Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Pupils should not only repeat, but they should also think and act. As soon as the child can reason, all instruction should be given with reference to its ultimate use. How often has the pride of a father been humbled when he has discovered that his son, whom he had supposed complete master of a science, is shamefully ignorant when required to apply the principles of that science to a particular art.

The pupil will understand the use of grammar by being required to speak correctly. Practical and simple questions will teach him that mathematics is the science of wealth.

Every study taught in school or college should, as far as possible, be utilized, and what has no use should be thrown aside as worthless.

I knew a teacher whose grand theme was physiology; it was the hobby on which he loved to ride. He would desecrate the funeral pile of bird or beast to obtain relics with which to illustrate his favorite subject. His pockets were always full of bones. He was so lean and lank, he seemed a living skeleton, and when he walked, he stooped forward as though by his posture he would teach a constant lesson of humility. He would talk physiology day after day, and right before his eyes were pupils who, on account of his failure to make the subject practical, were stoopshouldered and narrow-chested, and he did not even suggest a remedy. He would stand near the stove in his unventilated school room and discourse upon the component parts of air and water, while at every inspiration those under his care inhaled an atmosphere impregnated with poison.

Such failures to comprehend the true objects of education are pernicious. They are more than a waste of time and money, for they are, beside this, an injury to the pupil.

We boast of our free schools, which open their doors alike to the rich and the poor, and in many respects they merit encomium, but indiscriminate praise would be a doubtful compliment.

Let us, as instructors, remove the impediments which lie in our way. Let us demand by our words and examples that teaching be more thorough and efficient, and more practical in its results.

INQUIRY

WITH A VIEW OF ARRIVING AT A BETTER METHOD OF STUDYING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

BY DR. J. C. SCHELLHOUS.

Ladies and Gentlemen-Fellow Teachers: In the exposition of the methods of teaching English grammar now in vogue, and indicating one more in harmony with the principles of our language, I have undertaken a task, difficult indeed, but not hopeless. There is a growing demand among the teachers of this State, for a more rational and efficient method of teaching that part of our language technically termed grammar. Because the teachers demand it, it will come, for they are the true pioneers of education. I regret, however, that no teacher more competent than myself, has taken this up. In the considerations I shall present, I ask your indulgence and attention.

We are slow to conform to advancing ideas. Things that are familiar to us, seldom excite either curiosity or investigation. The accumulation of scientific knowledge, and its demands in the practical duties of life, leave but little time or room for considerations of a speculative charac

The acquisition of knowledge in any considerable amount, or to any great degree of precision, is toilsome, costly and unpalatable to the mass of mankind; so that to dispense with it makes a clear gain, provided the want is fraught with no serious results. This remark applies with peculiar force to the study of English grammar as at present taught in our public schools. Allow me to present the following inquiry, with a view of arriving at a better method of studying the English language. The main object confessedly aimed at in the study of English grammar, is to enable one to speak and write the English language with propriety. This consists chiefly in an observance of the changes that occur in the use of words in construction and modification, and the relation of modifiers to their elements, as established by the consent of the best writers and speakers.

The English language is peculiar in its structure, in this respect differing from other written languages, of which the Latin may be considered as the type. The construction of the Latin, and those languages derived from it, is based upon grammatical inflections, established and governed by fixed rules; on the contrary, the English language is arbitrary, and

its forms are determined by custom and general consent. The idea of ascribing accidents to English words is borrowed from the method of treating declinable words in the Latin.

We have no declinable words in our language, in the sense of Latin declinable words.

The modifications of English words are few, simple and arbitrary in their character, while those of the Latin are extremely numerous and complicated. For example, the Latin verb has scribo, I write; scrib-is, you write; scrib-unt, they did write; scrib-um, I may write; scrib-erent, they might write; and so on, through one hundred and forty-six different inflections, while only three possible endings can be given to the regular English verbs!

English nouns undergo no modifications, except to express number and to denote fitness or possession. In the Latin, there are five declensions, the plural of nouns in each (except the fifth) is determined by a different termination.

English nouns undergo no modifications to denote gender, neither are any words in construction modified by the consideration of the sex of the object named, except the third person singular of personal pronouns. In English, the idea of gender follows the order of nature and indicates the sex of the object named, while in Latin, gender is an acci dent of the noun itself, and is determined by the rules of grammatical inflections. Thus we say that mensa, a table, is feminine, being found in the first declension and ending in a, according to a rule of Latin grammar. In Latin, the consideration of gender is indispensable, and many rules are given to determine it, the principal of which are here stated. Nouns in the first declension, ending in as or es, are masculine; those ending in a or e are feminine. Nouns ending in er, ir, ur, us and os, in the second declension, are masculine; those ending in um or on are neuter. Nouns in the third declension, ending in n, o, er, or, es increasing, and os, are masculine; those ending in as, es not increasing, is, ys and ans, and s after a consonant, and x, are for the most part feminine; those ending in a, e, i, c and t, are always neuter; those in l, ar, ur and us are almost always neuter. In the fourth declension, those ending in us are masculine, those in u are neuter. All nouns in the fifth declension are feminine, except dies, a day. Some nouns are masculine in the singular and neuter in the plural, some are feminine in the singular and neuter in the plural, others neuter in the singular and masculine in the plural, and some are neuter in the singular and feminine in the plural.

I have taken pains to give these general rules for determining the gender of Latin nouns, to show in what a different sense the idea of gender is employed in the Latin, from that of gender in the English language. Latin nouns, on account of their gender, affect other words in construction: thus turba, a crowd, being feminine, must have adjectives and pronouns to agree with it in the feminine.

Case, in Latin, means ending; in English there is no modification, consequently no case, according to the idea of Latin_nouns. The idea of case in our language is identical with the use or office of words in construction, and may be disposed of in the analysis of syntax. Of the five declensions and twelve cases in each, the corresponding word in English translation requires no modification except to express the plural. We are told that nouns have four modifications to express persons, numbers, genders and cases. Let us see. Modification, in its etymological sense, means change. "I, Paul, have written this." Paul in the first person. 66 Paul, have you written this?" Paul in the second person.

"Paul has written this." Paul in the third person. Is the word Paul modified? We are told that gender is that modification of a noun that distinguishes objects in regard to sex. The sexes are distinguished in three ways: 1st.. By different words. Is girl a modification of boy? 2nd. By a different termination. There are three suffixes that denote female,"ess," "ine" and "ix." Actress, heroine and administratrix are just as much derivatives of "act," "hero" and "administrate," as are actor, hero and administrator. My lady friend would hardly admit that her name is Joseph, grammatically inflected so as to make it "Josephine." Are derivatives modifications of primitives? 3d. An attribute of distinction placed before a noun, as man-servant, she-bear. These are compound words as much as watchman, inkstand. pound words modifications of simple words? So much to express gender. Case is said to be another modification, and we are told in the same connection that the nominative and objective cases of nouns are always alike. What then becomes of the modification? Nothing now remains but the possessive, and that is admitted by all to be a limiting adjective, and as such it cannot have case. The same fallacies exist in regard to the moods, voices, tenses, numbers and persons of verbs.

Are com

English personal pronouns, standing for nouns, representing objects that have sex, must vary in the third person and singular number to indicate the sex. In the Latin, all the pronouns (except the first and second persons, which are either masculine or feminine), eighteen in number, are burdened with numerous and complicated rules to determine their gender, number and case.

English adjectives are very simple, having no modifications, except to express their degrees of comparison, while those of Latin have no less than three declensions, and all the varieties of gender, number and case

of nouns.

English verbs have but three possible modifications. Of these, ing and ed are employed to denote the time of an act or state of being, and s or es to agree with its subject in the third person singular, when the verb is declarative, and present time. In the Latin, there are five hundred and eighty-four regular inflections to express the moods, tenses, voices, numbers and persons of the verbs, besides many others under the head of exceptions. The signification of voice, mood and tense in English is expressed by other words. In the Latin, the root remaining unchanged, every possible variety of signification is expressed by a dif ferent termination, joined to the root. While the verb-form is the thing to be considered in Latin, the verb-signification is to be considered in English. The verb-forms are established by rules which do not change, verb-significations are established by usage which is arbitrary and changeable.

The idea of gender and case in our language is borrowed from the Latin; so is that of voice, mood, tense, number and person in the conjugation of verbs. Their application to our language is factitious and absurd. In Bullion's Latin grammar, not one-half of a page is given to the explanation of person in nouns, because person has nothing to do, either with the form of a noun or its meaning, while nearly forty pages are devoted to gender, number and case. Now, gender and case have nothing to do with the forms of English nouns, therefore less than half a page should be devoted to them in English grammar.

The first English grammar was little else than a compilation of rules and definitions, copied from the Latin, and designed to be applied to a language that has little or nothing in common with it. All succeeding

grammars are based upon the general idea of the first, thus subjecting both teacher and learner to a vast amount of useless labor. The attempt to engraft our language upon a foreign stock has led the pupil into a labyrinth of perplexity and doubt, rendering the study of English grammar distasteful, and prevented a more rational method of its study.

A few of its absurdities will be noticed: We are told that the subject of a verb must be in the nominative case. Nominative means naming. In the example "James beat John," is not John named as much as James? The idea of nominative in Latin is that form of the noun simply and directly named, and is called casus rectus, the straight case; and the other cases are called casus obliqui, the oblique cases. Now, these cases have reference only to the inflection of the noun; in English, the noun is not inflected. "James beat John," "John beat James"-the nouns remain the same; then why make the distinction without the difference? We are told, again, that finite verbs must agree with their subjects in number and person. The idea of number and person in Latin verbs has reference to their inflections, being accidents of the verbs, and in that language must agree; but we have no form of number and person of the English verb. As before stated, we can run an English verb through all its so-called moods, tenses, voices, numbers and persons, with but three modifications; while in Latin verbs there are one hundred and forty-six inflections in each, and four different conjugations at that, besides many exceptions. Whatever the subject in English may be, there is but one change in the verb, namely, "s" or "es," and that depends as much on the mode and tense of the verb as upon the number and person of the subject. It is impossible to conceive in what way the prevailing method of parsing can benefit the student. Let us examine the parsing of a sentence and see what it amounts to.

"The scholars labored hard to win the prize." We have to say the is an article, but since it performs the office of a limiting adjective, why not call it one? Scholars is a noun. The recognition of nouns is necessary for several reasons, but the construction of this sentence would not be modified by any possible change of modification of the subject "scholars," nor of the verb, except in the present tense. We are made to say "third person." A noun cannot be used in construction except in the third person; then why are we required to mention it? When we come to that accident called gender, what can we say? Some grammarian will tell us that "scholars" is common gender, but since gender is the distinction of sex, we are forced into the anomaly of a common distinction. But Mr. Brown tells us there is no common gender, and this leaves our poor scholars in a worse condition than ever. Since nothing is changed in construction by the consideration of gender, it is nothing to the grammarian to which sex these scholars belong. We are required to say "plural number." The verb would not be changed if the subject were singular, as "the scholar labored." Case: Since no change in the noun is effected by its use in construction, no distinction is necessary. The idea of case in our language is identical with subjective or objective elements in syntax. What is called the possessive case is simply a limiting adjective, and as we do not ascribe "case" to adjectives, no more can we to possessive nouns or pronouns. The proposition and its regimen constitute a phrase which has the nature of an adjective or adverb. "Labored" is a verb. The idea of a verb in Latin (from whence we borrow it) is furnished by the fact that it is the principal word in construction, as by its particular form it expresses the mode of action or being, the time, the voice, the number and person, and in the first and second per

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »