speech stands equally before the adjective and the verb. We sim plify the subject thus: Whatever we can perceive or imagine to exist independently, whether palpable or impalpable, we call a substance; and the name of a substance, we denominate a substantive word, or substantive. Whatever qualities, characteristics, or circumstance appertain to such a substance, we denominate attribute; and any word ascribing such an attribute to a given substance, we denominate an attributive. Thus God is a substance, and omnipotence is among his attributes. When we say God is omnipotent, we use a word ascribing the attribute of omnipotence to the Supreme Being. Omnipotent is therefore an attributive. By the same rule, when we say God is observant of the conduct of men, observant is an attributive. But we may say the same thing thus: God observes the conduct of The three words, is observant of, are here all absorbed in the single word observes. Of these, the office of the first is simply to assert, and that of the third is merely to connect the act of observing with the passive object, observed. The act of observing is still ascribed to God, and the word observes is accordingly an attributive, differing from the former chiefly in this, that it not only names but also asserts the attribute. men. When we introduce adjectives, we treat them as descriptive, or explanatory, of nouns. If for example, the sentence is, A book lies on the table; we ask what kind of a book? It may be a large book or a small book, or a new book or an old book, a good book or a bad book, &c. Suppose we say "a large book," then the question will be how large? A quite large book, a very large book, an exceedingly large book, an immensely large book. All these answers present us with adverbs. Examples of this kind serve then to show our pupils, that as adjectives and verbs express attributes of substances, so adverbs express attributes of attributes. Adverbs will then be allowed a place before adjectives, verbs, or other adverbs; but never before nouns. It is not to be supposed that all this abstraction is inculcated on the pupil. By no means. But the practice for which the reason [Assem. No 125.] 2 is here assigned is taught, and the mode of teaching it, however simple it may appear, is drawn from this very philosophy. The notion of a substantive will already be in possession of the pupil. This will be a result of induction from the earliest examples of language with which he is familiar. At this period of his instruction, it is unnecessary to diverge into the region of abstract existence. A noun to him will be for the present, therefore, the name of a real and palpable thing. An attributive word, taken at random, will denote not a thing, but something concerning a thing, or belonging to a thing. Take the example already introduced; a boy writes a letter. We ask can this act of writing be seized and subjected to examination? It cannot; it is not then a thing. We say, therefore, that this act must belong to somebody-it must be his act-who, then, is this somebody? The pupil replies, the boy. It is very easy in the language of signs thus to denote attributes. This word in fact represents an idea little differing from that of property. To ascribe to the boy this act of writing, we have but to make a sign denoting boy in a particular location, and then after seeming for a moment to write, to direct the palm of the hand towards the imaginary individual. It is obviously of no importance, whether the attributive be a verb or adjective. Thus in the examples: God observes our conduct; God is observant of our conduct. The act of observing is in either case attributed to the Supreme Being. It is well, however, to point out the fact that in the verb this attribute is asserted, and not in the adjective. Assertion in the language of the deaf and dumb, differs in no way from the universal mode of signifying assent by a nod—a sign certainly natural, for it is as old at least as the time of Homer. When used in this connection, it is made with some emphasis, immediately after that to which it is intended to apply. Let the adverb be now introduced. Let the sentence be God closely observes our conduct. Here is manner of action stated. We ask our pupils what is it that is affected by this manner? Does closely belong to God? To our own conduct? No, but it tells us how the observation of that conduct is carried on. As the word observes then, attributes something to God; so the word closely ascribes something to observes. It is by processes of this nature that the pupil is brought to recog nize, as additional laws of construction, 1st. That adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are all dependant parts of speech, or attributives. 2d. That adjectives and verbs depend on nouns. 3d. That adverbs depend on adjectives or verbs. It is in this way that he learns, however numerous the epithets and qualifications by which a sentence is embarrassed, to regard it still, so long as it is complicated neither by conjunctions nor by relatives, as strictly homogeneous with the proposition of three words first presented to his attention, for the attributives superadded are inessential to the sentence, and only maintain their places by the help of the principal words on which they depend. In pursuing the investigation of the laws of construction, we find a class of words whose effect seems to be to interrupt the regularity of the simple sentence. These are words which serve as links, enabling us to append something to that which was grammatically complete before. They may be called connectives, and consist of prepositions and conjunctions. The prepositions are introduced with intransitive verbs, and are considered with the verbs which they assist to constitute single words. Analysis shows that the transitive power of the verb-that is, the power to put a noun in the objective case, has gone over to the preposition. All transitive verbs may be indeed regarded as intransitives which have absorbed a preposition. The words to dwell and to inhabit, are, in the latin, habitan, often intransitive, and inhabitan transitive. And as transitive verbs require one object after them, by the help of prepositions they may have any number. The power of putting a noun in the objective case gives to the preposition the property of creating attributive phrases, when attributive words fail. Thus, instead of the expression, a wise man, we may say a man of wisdom, and instead of the sentence, he writes rapidly, we may say, he writes with rapidity. Phrases thus attached, by means of the preposition to whatever part of the sentence, we teach our pupil to regard as single attributive words. They thus form, like adjectives and adverbs, a part of their principals, and thus once more reduce the sentence to the simplicity of the original model. But another class of connectives overthrows this simplicity entirely. It is from the too unrestrained use of the conjunctions, that what are called involved sentences proceed. So long as but a single assertion is contained in a sentence, so long it matters not how many attributives or attributive classes are superadded. The pupil, taught according to the method practised in our school, will be at no loss to comprehend them in their due subordinate rank. But the moment different assertions are, by the power of the conjunction, embodied into one sentence, there begins a species of complexity, which, however easily explicable it may appear to those who have from infancy been familiar with all its variations, requires unwearied effort, and patient attention, on the part of the teacher of the deaf and dumb, to make intelligible to his pupils. There are words employed both as prepositions and conjunctions. Such are for, since, before, after, till, &c. It is therefore necessary that the pupil's attention should be anew directed to the fact, that in a perfect simple sentence, there is but one assertion, that is but one verb. This must be strongly impressed upon his mind. The preposition has no power to subjoin another. To do this is the province of the conjunction. The pupil is therefore taught that the conjunction regularly stands between two assertions. Each of these assertions forms the nucleus of an independent sentence: and each sentence is, therefore, to be constructed according to the model originally given him. Take this example, I love my parents. My parents have been kind to me. I love my parents because they have been kind to me. The conjunction and occasionally connects only words, and not assertions or sentences. A single exception, however, cannot af fect a general rule. There would still be little additional difficulty, resulting from conjunctions, were it not for the transposition of clauses which they admit. And the difficulty would be less were this transposition universally practicable. But we may say: Though he slay me, I will trust in him. The conjunction though allows the clauses of the compound sen tence to be transposed. But the conjunction yet, and also nevertheless, and still, though of similar signification, allow no such transposition. The only remedy for this evil is to classify conjunctions, as fixed or moveable, and to depend for the rest upon the memory of the pupil. There is a class of pronouns which partake of the nature of conjunctions. These are the relatives. They stand between, and connect separate assertions. These add to the involution of sentences. The classes which they introduce, like those introduced by conjunctions, are to be fashioned also according to the original model. With this species of words the last of connectives is completed. The pupil, properly familiarized with them, learns; 1st. That a preposition controls a noun with its dependant words. 2d. That a conjunction connects assertions. 3d. That some conjunctions allow the assertions connected, to be transposed, and that others do not. 4th. That relative pronouns stand for nouns and conjunctions at the same time. When sentences become involved, by the combination of many assertions, there is always one which predominates over the rest, and constitutes the foundation of the complex preposition. To the intelligibility of language, it is important that this should be pointed out. We teach our pupils therefore to observe, that conjunctions and relatives stand at the head of the clauses to which they belong. This continues to be the case under every transposition. Thus: He is honest, as I believe. The main preposition is, here, that he is honest. This preposition is qualified by the clause, resting it upon my belief. It is to this subordinate clause that the conjunction is prefixed. Observation will show that, universally, the clauses introduced by conjunctions or relatives are dependant, and that the principal assertion is that which is preceded by no such word. All these things, however obvious they may be to those who speak and hear, must, nevertheless, be separately pointed out to |