« 前へ次へ »
in which we have subjective auxiliaries, one expressed and the other understood ;
in which occurs a predicative auxiliary, "and ;"
exemplifying a general auxiliary corrective, “ere ;" and
which presents, in the word, " that,” a general auxiliary, merely introductive.
SIXTH LAW. INDEPENDENT ELEMENTS. Independent elements enclosed in their specified figures or diagrams, are, when purely independent, placed at the left or right of the sentence or proposition to which they belong ; or when logical adjuncts, below the elements to which they refer. The latter are exemplified below, in the independent, substantive, logical adjuncts, “ Hermit and “Apostle ;"
and in the independent proposition, logical adjunct, “that we misjudge,” in the following:
Without going farther in this direction, a careful and progressive examination of what has been given, will suffice to show what are the principal laws for the construction of the diagrams, and what is symbolized in the various examples already given, as well as in those yet to be adduced.”
* For the frequent use made of the diagrams in this treatise, the excuse is offered, that the object is, not merely to exhibit the facts to the reader, but also to habituate him to the diagrams themselves, so that he may better understand what is urged with regard to them.
OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF GRAMMATICAL DIAGRAMS
Not strange that objections are urged—They must be directly
met-1st Objection. The Diagrams new and strange–The fact objected to indicative of progress—2nd Objection. They are complicated and difficult—The apparent complexity due to a false mode of judging—The real, due to the nature of language itself—3d Objection. They are imperfect—The same chargeable against all graphic illustration—The alleged defect grows out of the nature of language, and no defect at all—4th Objection. They are unnecessary—The same holds with equal force every: where else--The abstract discipline proposed unnatural and unnecessary—It is impracticable in the case of the young—The better tendency of education is toward objective or graphic methods.
REFERENCE has already been made to the fact that those who venture to employ the system of diagrams just unfolded, as a convenient, if not necessary, means of exhibiting in a more distinct and practical form, the facts evolved in the analysis of sentences, are often called to meet with a virulent opposition on the part of those unfamiliar with them, and wedded to the older methods of pursuing the study of grammar.
Not strange that objections should be urged. Now, while it is by no means granted, that this hostility has any just foundation, the fact of its existence is not altogether strange. Whoever, with no notions of grammatical science save those derived from the old-style authors, and from the methods of teaching current in our lower and less progressive schools, has, for the first time, opened Prof. Clark's Grammars or Analysis, has found his gaze confronted by a series of symbols, or diagrams altogether new and strange to his unsophisticated fancy, perhaps, as uncouth and startling as a troop of ghostly maskers unexpectedly descried in the hitherto unoccupied desolation of a familiar attic. To such a person, prepossessed, as he will be, with the idea that grammar is altogether an abstract study, and that there can be nothing in its principles or treatment, beyond what is contained in his favorite “sere and yellow leaf” authors, nothing can be more natural than a spontaneous feeling of hostility to the new method, and an instant search for objections to the use of its diagrams.
Objections must be decisively met. Now, to a candid mind,—one disposed to undertake a careful and progressive study of the diagrams, –a direct presentation of the facts concerning their nature, adaptation and utility, would be sufficient. But so numerous are these objectors, so strong are their prejudices, so unprepared are they for a proper reception and appreciation of the simple and direct truth, and, what is worse, so often are they only intent upon disparaging the system, and throwing obstacles in the way of those employing it, that it becomes necessary to attack and overthrow them upon their own ground. They must be conquered before they can be convinced, if they can even be convinced at all.
1st Objection.— The Diagrams new and strange.
One of the first objections entertained, although not always formally urged, by these persons, is the fact that the systematic use of diagrams in grammar is, to them, a new, strange and, perhaps, unprecedented device.
THE FACT OBJECTED TO IS REALLY INDICATIVE OF PROGRESS.
But is this not quite as likely indicative of antiquated learning and stereotyped thought in the objector, as of real inconsistency and inutility in the diagram system itself? To the man, for, perhaps, a quarter of a century, accustomed to wander in the wilderness of Murray's English Reader, Daboll's Arithmetic, Morse's old Geography, and Blake's or Comstock’s Philosophy, how much equally strange and startling would appear in the new lands of promise opened suddenly upon his view, in the works of Mandeville, Davies, Guyot, and Loomis! The truth is, amidst the thousand improvements which the progress of the age has introduced into science, this very newness and strangeness is presumptive proof in favor of the thing condemned. They are among the first indications of original investigation, profounder analysis and, hence, of real advancement.
2nd Objection. They are complicated and difficult.
A more common objection, however, is that the diagrams are complicated and difficult to be comprehended. The objector sees neither simplicity nor sense in them.
THIS APPARENT COMPLEXITY IS DUE TO A FALSE MODE OF JUDGING.
But, how does he approach them,-through a detailed examination and progressive study ? Or does he pounce