ページの画像
PDF
ePub

The use of these lines, whether dotted or continuous, is wholly objectionable. They are not necessary; and if employed in every case, as they should be if they are used at all, they can only render the more extended diagrams utterly confused and unintelligible. The teacher may temporarily resort to them, to impress on the pupil the collective unity of the elements concerned ; but he should peremptorily forbid their use by the pupil.

IV.- Errors involving the Analysis.

1. LINE OF SEPARATION.

Fourthly. We notice errors involving a faulty analysis.

First. The line of distinction or separation between the parts of the predicate or of the verbal subsequent, is often either improperly omitted or inserted. Examples of a faulty omission will be found in the following: see is sleepy, is love, and waxed deadly and chill.

[blocks in formation]

The following are examples of a faulty insertion of the line of separation : see is reading, might have been respected, and having left.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

The following is of a mixed character. The line is wrongly inserted between the participles having been, but is rightly employed between the participle been and the noun soldier.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

This treatment of the line of separation is not only in violation of the seventh rule, page 73, but is also inconsistent with the better usage of the Grammar elsewhere. The following exemplify that better usage: see for correct omission, having arrived, will improve, have taken, for correct insertion, tasted sweet, waxed strong, and is true.

[blocks in formation]

man's this old

most

The truth is, the line of separation is altogether superfluous, unless it indicates a real distinction in terms which might otherwise be confounded with each other. Now, between verbal and non-verbal terms employed in predication, a real distinction appears in analysis and construction ; but none whatever between verbs and verbs, or between verbs and participles.

PROOF OF THE PRINCIPLE AS TO THE LINE OF SEPARATION.

The truth of this, and the justness of the general criticism may be readily seen by instituting in tabular form, an actual analysis of the two species of predicates, as follows :

TABULAR ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLES.

* John is | sleepy.

Mary is reading.
Element,

Element,
Principal,

Principal,
Predicate,

Predicate,
Words,

Words,
Verb + Adjective,

Verb + Participle, Auxiliary Principal Term, Aux. Principal Term, (used with) (used with)

(used as a)
Sleepy,
is,

Comp. Verb,
Intransitive,
Qualifying,

Grammatical Intran, Neuter, Common,

Redundant, Redundant, Nominal,

Irregular, Irregular, Pos. Degree,

Declarative, Declarative, (independent

Indicative, Indicative, in predicate,

Progressive, Pres. Tense, logically re

Pres. Tense, Third Pers., ferring to)

Third Pers., Singular, John,

Singular, (agreeing with) RULE.

(agreeing with) John,

Mary, RULE.

RULE.

* This tabular analysis is drawn out in detail, partly for the purpose of exhibiting the tabular method of verbal construction.

Here it is at once seen, that so soon as, in the analysis, we reach the distinction as to parts of speech, there is a marked difference in the construction of the two predicates. Is reading continues a unit throughout. There is no separation whatever in construction. Hence, predicates, of however many terms composed, if purely verbal, neither require nor admit the line of distinction in the diagram. But predicates composed of verbal and nonverbal elements, in their word construction, necessarily diverge, the one part from the other, each pursuing its own line of analysis, and, in the tabular statement of that analysis, requiring to be separated from the other, by the vertical line seen in the example. Of this line, the line of distinction or separation in the diagram is the proper symbol. Hence, only in such predicates should that line* be inserted, as has been affirmed in rule seventh.

A peculiar interest attaches to this demonstration, inasmuch as it beautifully illustrates the fact before urged ; namely, that the diagram system is neither fanciful nor arbitrary, but is everywhere permeated by a consistent philosophy.

2. ATTACHMENT OF ADJUNCT FIGURES AS TO ORDER.

Secondly. In some instances, adjunct figures are so attached in the diagrams, as not to represent the true relations of the elements enclosed. Take, for example, the adverb How in the following diagram :

* In most of these figures the line of separation is too indistinct. It should be longer and should be more boldly drawn. See Gram mar, page 57, is truth.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Here, how is attached to the verbal section of the predicate figure, as if it related to are, and the sense were how are.

The true sense is, however, how dear. It depends, then, wholly upon dear. Its figure should, therefore, as well as that of the phrase following) have been attached farther to the right, so as to bring it under the adjective section of the predicate. The line of separation is, of course, required between are and dear.

Again, take the adverb not, and the phrase to tell what, in the following:

[blocks in formation]

Here, both adjuncts are unmistakably made to modify the verbal auxiliary is. Their relation is, however, solely that of modifiers of the predicate adjective able. They should, then, like the adjuncts in the former example, have been attached to the predicate, and on the right of the line of separation.

The true mode is fairly shown in the predicate in the following :

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

grammar

« 前へ次へ »