tive importance. Some words, for instance, (and this is the case with many of our Saxon derivatives) are constantly recurring, while the use of others is rare and limited to certain styles or subjects. To determine what part of our language as commonly written, is really Saxon, various passages from the authorized version of the Scriptures, and from standard writers of different eras have been analyzed. The result, s given in Turner's Anglo-Saxons, shows that when the words were classified under the languages from which they were re spectively derived, more than four fifths of the whole were found to be of Saxon origin. The individual passages compared were found to differ widely from each other as regards their proportion of foreign elements. The translators of the Bible wrote by far the purest Saxon, only of their words being derived from other sources; of Swift's words, are not Saxon; of Milton's, ; of Shakspeare's, ; of Spenser's Addison's, and Thomson's, about ; of Johnson's, ; of Pope's and Hume's,; of Gibbon's, much more than .

1

LESSON X.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§ 32. Before proceeding to consider the different classes of words, and the parts they respectively perform in a sen tence, we may with advantage look at our language as a whole, and observe its leading characteristics.

Derived, as we have seen, from so many different sources,

not? To arrive at a knowledge of this, what has been done? What proportion of all the words employed is found to be of Saxon origin? Who are ascertained to have written the purest Saxon? What proportion of their words is derived from other sources? Of Swift's words, what part is not Saxon? of Milton's? Shakspeare's? Spenser's? Addison's, and Thomson's? Johnson's? Pope's and Hume's? Gibbon's? f82. What follows from the fact that English has been derived from so many differ

each of which has contributed some of its own peculiar fea tures, it naturally follows that English, like every other compounded language, is full of irregularities. We must not ex pect entire consistency in its parts, or that complete analogy of structure which is found in simpler tongues that have been built on but one foundation. Our words, naturalized from widely different dialects, "straggle," as Blair says, "asunder from each other, and do not coalesce so naturally in the structure of a sentence as the words in the Greek and Roman tongues." Our orthography is anomalous; the same combination of letters may be pronounced in half a dozen different ways: * and our syntactical constructions are so arbitrary that it often perplexes the best grammarians to account for them. We have introduced foreign idioms and modes of construction; and our sentences too often look like patchwork, composed of divers pieces, handsome enough in themselves, but of such different colors and qualities that the eye cannot help being struck with the variety in passing from one to another.

Composite languages, however, have advantages as well as drawbacks. The very variety alluded to above is preferable to sameness, and often imparts vivacity to what might otherwise seem monotonous and dull. Such tongues, moreover, are generally enriched with copious vocabularies; and particularly is this true of English, whose abundance of historical, political, moral, and philosophical terms, leaves little to be desired by the writer. Nor are we less amply provided with distinct and peculiar poetical terms. With us poetry differs from prose, not only in having a certain arrangement of syllables and feet, but

* For example, ough in through, though, cough, tough, lough, hic‐ cough, plough.

ent sources? What must we not expect? What says Blair respecting our words? What is the character of our orthography? Give an example. What is said of our sentences?

What advantage, on the other hand, do composite languages possess? With what are such tongues generally enriched? With what kind of terms are we amply pro vided? In English, how does poetry differ from prose? Whose writings prove this?

in the very words that compose it; so much so that the wri tings of Ossian, though they have neither rhyme nor metre, are classed by many among poems. In this respect we enjoy a great advantage over the French, whose poetry, without rhyme, would be hardly distinguishable from their prose; and with whom, as a consequence, blank verse is never attempted. For this richness we are indebted to the fact that our language, originally made up from several others, has borrowed from them all; and thus has supplied from one what was wanting in another, and even in some cases appropriated duplicate terms and expressions to denote the same thing. These are of great use to the writer in every department of composition, enabling him to diversify his style and avoid unpleasant repetitions.

§33. Every language is supposed to take, in a greater or less degree, its predominant tone from the character of the people that speak it. Though it cannot, of course, exactly represent their customs, manners, powers of mind, and habits of thought, yet it must necessarily be in some measure, if ever so little, affected by their national characteristics. The vivacity of the French, the thoughtfulness of the English, and the gravity of the Spanish, are unmistakably impressed on their respective tongues.

From the character of those by whom our language was originally formed, and from whom it has received most of its subsequent additions and modifications, we would expect to find it distinguished by strength and energy; and this is the case, notwithstanding the numerous small particles and auxiliary verbs which we are constantly obliged to employ, with a decidedly weakening effect. Though our constructions are by no means compact, and our thoughts are diluted with a superabun dance of words, yet, in spite of these disadvantages, since it abounds in

What is said of French in this respect? What kind of verse is, therefore, never attempted in that language? To what fact is English indebted for this richness? How Is this quality of use to the writer?

§ 33. From what does every language take its predominant tone? What is the characteristic of the French and their tongue? What of the English? What of the Spanish? Judging from the character of the formers of our language, by what would we expect to find English distinguished? Is this the case? What words, however,

terms adapted to the expression of the strongest emotions, and presents superior facilities for forming compounds, and thereby briefly representing complex ideas, our language is admitted by all nations to be eminently nervous and energetic.

Flexibility, or susceptibility of accommodation to different styles and tastes, so as to be either grave or gay, forcible or tender, simple or imposing, as occasion may require, is one of the most important qualities that a language can possess, as regards both writing and speaking. To ensure flexibility, three characteristics are essential; copiousness, capacity for changes of construction and arrangement, and strength and beauty as regards individual words. The first two of these

qualities we have seen that English possesses in a high degree; in the last it is not deficient. While, therefore, it is inferior in flexibility to Latin and Greek, and of modern languages perhaps to Italian, it is still capable of being used with success in any style; as must be apparent to all who examine the master-pieces which our literature has produced in the various departments of prose and poetry.

It has been said above that our tongue is not deficient in harmony; and this is proved by the fact that it is capable of being formed into poetry without the aid of rhyme. Vowel sounds abound, and please the ear with their variety. The frequent recurrence of the hissing consonant s, however, has an unpleasant effect, which we have only partially removed by assigning to that letter, in certain positions, the sound of z; as in is, these, ears, loves, resolves, &c. The melody of our periods is also materially affected by our tendency to throw the accent of polysyllables back towards the beginning; to which tendency we are indebted for such awkward words as tempo

have a decidedly weakening effect? What is said of our constructions? How are our thoughts diluted? Notwithstanding this, what is the general character of our lan guage? To what features does it owe this character?

What is one of the most important qualities a language can possess? Enumerate the characteristics essential to flexibility. How does English rank as regards these three essentials? How does it compare in flexibility with Latin, Greek, and Italian? What proves its adaptation to all styles?

raily, mischievously, mercenariness, miserableness, and many others similarly discordant.

Whatever may be said of the English language in other respects, in simplicity it undoubtedly surpasses the rest of European tongues. It is free from intricacies of case, declension, mood, and tense. Its words are subject to but few terminational changes. Its substantives have no distinctions of gender except what nature has made. Its adjectives admit of such changes only as are necessary to denote the degrees of comparison. Its verbs, instead of running through all the varieties of ancient conjugation, suffer few changes. With the help of prepositions and auxiliaries, all possible relations are expressed, while the words for the most part retain their forms unchanged. We lose from this, no doubt, in brevity and strength; but we gain vastly in simplicity. The arrangement of our words is, in consequence, less difficult, and our sentences are more readily understood. The rules of our syntax are exceedingly simple, and the acquisition of our language is easy in proportion.

LESSON XI.

PARTS OF SPEECH.

834. Having traced the history of our language, considered the sources from which it is derived, and noted its chief characteristics, we shall now proceed to treat of its words,

What proves that English is not deficient in harmony? What consonant has an unpleasant sound? How have we attempted to remove the difficulty? What tendency in accentuation interferes with the melody of periods? Mention some inharmonious words thus accented.

In what does English surpass all other European tongues? What features are men. tioned, which conduce to its simplicity? How are the different relations of nouns and verbs expressed? In what respects do we lose in consequence of this? In what do we gain?