etymologically.
OBS. 3.--From these observations it may be seen, that the most important and most comprehensive principle of English syntax, is the simple Relation of words, according to the sense. To this head alone, ought to be referred all the rules of construction by which our articles, our nominatives, our adjectives, our participles, our adverbs, our conjunctions, our prepositions, and our interjections, are to be parsed. To the ordinary syntactical use of any of these, no rules of concord, government, or position, can at all apply. Yet so defective and erroneous are the schemes of syntax which are commonly found in our English grammars, that no rules of simple relation, none by which any of the above-named parts of speech can be consistently parsed, are in general to be found in them. If there are any exceptions to this censure, they are very few, and in treatises still marked with glaring defects in regard to the syntax of some of these parts of speech.
OBS. 4.--Grammarians, of course, do not utter falsehoods intentionally; but it is lamentable to see how often they pervert doctrine by untruths uttered ignorantly. It is the design of this pandect, to make every one who reads it, an intelligent judge of the perversions, as well as of the true doctrines, of English grammar. The following citations will show him the scope and parts which have commonly been assigned to our syntax: "The construction of sentences depends principally upon the concord or agreement, and the regimen or government, of words."--Lowth's Gram., p. 68; Churchill's, 120. "Words in sentences have a twofold relation to one another; namely, that of Concord or Agreement; and that of Government or Influence."--Dr. Adam's Latin and English Grammar, p. 151. "The third part of Grammar is SYNTAX, which treats of the agreement and construction of words in a sentence."--E. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 15. "Syntax principally consists of two parts, Concord and Government."--Murray's Gram., p. 142; Ingersoll's, 170; Alger's, 51; R. C. Smith's, 119; and many others. "Syntax consists of two parts, Concord and Government."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 175; Wright's, 124. "The Rules of Syntax may all be included under three heads, Concord, Government, and Position."--Bullions's E. Gram., p. 87. "Position means the place which a word occupies in a sentence."--Ib. "These rules may be mostly ranked under the two heads of agreement and government; the remainder may be termed miscellaneous."--Nutting's Gram., p. 92. "Syntax treats of the agreement, government and proper arrangement of words in a sentence."--Frost's El. of Gram., p. 43. This last-named author, in touching the text of my books, has often corrupted it, as he does here; but my definitions of the tenses he copied without marring them much. The borrowing occurred as early as 1828, and I add this notice now, lest any should suppose me the plagiarist.
OBS. 5.--Most of our English grammars have more rules of syntax than are needed, and yet are very deficient in such as are needed. To say, as some do, that articles, adjectives, and participles, agree with nouns, is to teach Greek or Latin syntax, and not English. To throw, as Nutting does, the whole syntax of adverbs into a remark on such a rule of agreement, is to choose disorder for its own sake. To say, with Frost, Hall, Smith, Perley, Kirkham, Sanborn, Rand, and others, "The nominative case governs the verb in number and person," and again, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person," is to confound the meaning of government and agreement, to say the same thing in different words, and to leave the subject of a verb still without a rule: for rules of government are applicable only to the words governed, and nothing ever agrees with that which governs it.[325] To say, with Murray and others, "Participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived," is to say nothing by which either verbs or participles may be parsed, or any of their errors corrected: those many grammarians, therefore, who make this their only rule for participles, leave them all without any syntax. To say, with Murray, Alger, and others, "Adverbs, though they have no government of case, tense, &c., require an appropriate situation in the sentence," is to squander words at random, and leave the important question unanswered, "To what do adverbs relate?" To say again, with the same gentlemen, "Conjunctions connect the same moods and tenses of verbs, and cases of nouns and pronouns," is to put an ungrammatical, obscure, and useless assertion, in the place of an important rule. To say merely, "Prepositions govern the objective case," is to rest all the syntax of prepositions on a rule that never applies to them, but which is meant only for one of the constructions of the objective case. To say, as many do, "Interjections require the objective case of a pronoun of the first person after them, and the nominative case of the second," is to tell what is utterly false as the words stand, and by no means true in the sense which the authors intend. Finally, to suppose, with Murray, that, "the Interjection does not require a distinct, appropriate rule," is in
