OBS. 34.--The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between etymological parsing and syntactical--or, between that exercise which simply classifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which adds to this the principles of their construction--is rejected by Kirkham, and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted. But, since "grammar is the art of speaking and writing with propriety" who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the want of them excusable in models prescribed for the exercise of parsing? And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above cited, respecting the pronoun what, but to the whole method of parsing adopted by the author of "English Grammar in Familiar Lectures."
OBS. 35.--The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words, and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions, which constitute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two parts of grammar are in their nature totally distinct and independent. Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in treating of the classes and modifications of words, exhibit contingently some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can be more unwise.
OBS. 36.--The great peculiarity of the pronoun what, or of its compound whatever or whatsoever, is a peculiarity of construction, rather than of etymology. Hence, in etymological parsing, it may be sufficient to notice it only as a relative, though the construction be double. It is in fact a relative; but it is one that reverses the order of the antecedent, whenever the noun is inserted with it. But as the noun is usually suppressed, and as the supplying of it is attended with an obvious difficulty, arising from the transposition, we cut the matter short, by declaring the word to have, as it appears to have, a double syntactical relation. Of the foregoing example, therefore--viz., "From what is recorded," &c.,--a pupil of mine, in parsing etymologically, would say thus: "What is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a verb." In parsing syntactically, he would say thus: "What is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative, being equivalent to that which. As antecedent, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; being governed by from; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is goverved [sic--KTH] by it in the objective case.' Because the meaning is--from what. As relative, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; being the subject of is recorded; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is--what is recorded."
OBS. 37.--The word what, when uttered independently as a mark of surprise, or as the prelude to an emphatic question which it does not ask, becomes an interjection; and, as such, is to
