The accidence and syntax in john Wallis' 1653 "grammatica linguae anglicanae": a translation and a commentary on its alleged relationship to the 1660 port-royal "grammaire generale et raisonnee"

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 73-760 RANEY, George William, 1938- THE ACCIDENCE AND SYNTAX IN JOHN WALLIS' 1653 GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLICANAE: A TRANSLATION AND A CMENTARY ON ITS ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP TO THE 1660 PORT-ROYAL GRAMMAIRE GENERALE ET RAISONNEE. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1972 Language and Literature, linguistics University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany , Ann Arbor, Michigan C opyright © by GEORGE WILLIAM RANEY 1972 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission ! THE ACCIDENCE AND SYNTAX IN JOHN WALLIS' 1653 GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLICANAE: A TRANSLATION AND A COMMENTARY ON ITS ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP TO THE 1660 PORT-ROYAL GRAMMAIRE gUn^RALE ET RAISONN^E by I | George William Raney I I j A Dissertation Presented to the ! FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ! UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the i Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY j I (Linguistics) | i I { ! June 1972 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LOS A NG ELES. C A LIF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 T his dissertation, w ritte n by ........ G^RGE„KILLim.RAmY.......... under the direction of h.is... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by T he G radu ate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y Dean D ate Iu» e.L..l_9..72 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE - . ' . T i c . ' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. F ilmed as rece i ved. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS jChapter Page! I ! I I. INTRODUCTION.................................... li II. TRANSLATION OF THE GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLIC A N A E .................................... 7: i ! III. INTELLECTUAL AND HISTORICAL M I L I E U ............ 83! ! Histogram of Seventeenth-Century England ! Historical Background I IV. BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN WALLIS ....................... 97- | V. THE QUARRELS OF JOHN WALLIS WITH MATHEMATICIANS AND GRAMMARIANS..................106 | VI. A COMPARISON OF THE GRAMMATICA LINGUAE | ANGLICANAE (1653) AND THE GRAMMAIRE | G^N^RALE ET RAISONN^E (1660) 116 VII. AN EVALUATION OF JOHN WALLIS' CHARGE AGAINST PORT-ROYAL ........................... 135 VIII. THE GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLICANAE AS AN EFL T E X T ....................................... 148 IX. CONCLUSION......................................... 170 ! BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................ 180 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION j John Wallis, like Joseph Priestley, is remembered more I 'today for his achievements in science, more particularly i 1 I imathematics, than for his linguistic investigations. How- jever, even a cursory examination of his life and activities I jreveals that Wallis took an avid interest in language, (especially in English grammar. In addition to being a jskilled cryptographer and an expert in teaching deaf-mutes !to speak, Wallis produced a grammar, Grammatica Linguae l Anglicanae (1653) (henceforth, GLA). Although his De i i Loguela, a treatise on phonetics appended to his GLA, is i ;well known and has received substantial recent attention, Wallis 1 work on morphology and syntax has attracted less Inotice.^ My task is to provide a translation of the GLA I The only major study of Wallis' views on English ■accidence and syntax is an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by jHoward Baker entitled "The Contribution of John Wallis to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Iproper and to evaluate it as an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teaching device. I shall be providing for the 2 first time an English version of "the Doctor's" views on the structure of English. However, as Chapter I of the GLA deals with the formation and pronunciation of English speech sounds and since Wallis 1 work as an orthoepist has been dealt with adequately by other writers, it does not fall 3 within the scope of this study. My interest in Wallis as a participant in seventeenth- century linguistic investigations stems from recent work by 4 Noam Chomsky, xn partxcular hxs Cartesxan Lxnguxstxcs 5 (henceforth CL) and his Language and Mind. Chomsky has linked his transformational-generative model of grammar to the Methods and Materials of English Grammar" (University of Michigan, 1938). I shall examine Baker's contribution in Chapter VI. In several perxodxcals, e.g., Monthly Magazxne, July- December 1902, and Notes and Queries, January-June 1860, Wallis is called "the Doctor" out of respect for his accom plishments . I am retaining the appellation. 3 • See partxcularly E. J. Dobson's Englxsh Pronuncxatxon 1500-1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), Vol. I, and Margaret McIntosh's unpublished bachelor of letters thesis, "The Phonetic and Linguistic Theory of the Royal Society School, from Wallis to Cooper" (Oxford University, 1956). ^New York: Harper and Row, 1966. ^New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 jDescartes1 views on language. Both maintain that the ability to acquire a language is innate in man and that the study of universal grammar is actually a study of human cognitive capacities . The human mind is equipped at birth with a mental representation of a universal grammar and this; internalized system, much of which has to be learned, en ables a speaker of any tongue to generate an infinite number of sentences by means of formal operations termed transfor mations Taking this rationalistic view of the operations of the mind in language acquisition, Chomsky has resurrected the French Port-Royal School, whose work on universal grammar has recently been recognized as an intellectual milestone in grammatical theory. While Chomsky's claim that Descartes was the impetus behind the linguistic theory embodied in the ^To quote Chomsky: "... the underlying deep struc ture, with its abstract organization of linguistic forms, is 'present to the mind,' as the signal, with its surface structure, is produced or perceived by the bodily organs . And the transformational operations relating deep and sur face structure are actual mental operations, performed by the mind when a sentence is produced or understood . . . it follows that there must be, represented in the mind, a fixed system of generative principles that characterize and asso ciate deep and surface structures in some definite way— a grammar, in other words, that is used in some fashion as discourse is produced, or interpreted" (Language and Mind, p. 16). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. |Port-Royal Grammaire generale et raisonnee (1660) (hence- 7 forth GRG) has been disputed, whether the GRG is Cartesian or Lockean is not crucial to my investigations. g While Lancelot and Arnauld were pondering linguistic universals on the Continent, Wallis was helping to organize the English Royal Society, an outgrowth of earlier gather ings at Gresham College in London, where several professors had been employed on a regular basis to deliver lectures on ^Chomsky's 1966 claim had been substantiated two years earlier by Emma Vorlat in Progress in English Grammar 1585- 1735: A Study of the Development of English Grammar and of the Interdependence among the Early English Grammarians, 4 vols. (Luxembourg: E. A. Peiffer, 1964). She pointed out that providing grammatical data with a philosophical basis is a characteristic "particularly striking in the Port-Royal grammar, which does nothing but apply the Cartesian philo sophical principles to the various data of the linguistic phenomenon" (I, 47-49). Hans Aarsleff, in "The History of Linguistics and Professor Chomsky," Language, 46 (September 1970), 570-585 criticizes Chomsky for stating that the Cartesian tradition dominated seventeenth-century linguistic theory. In Aarsleff's view, Locke and not Descartes was the dominating force. O Although the GRG was published anonymously, the authorship is attributed to Claude Lancelot and Antoine Arnauld, two Port-Royal scholars who were interested in philosophical grammar. Lancelot's most famous treatise, Nouvelle methode pour facilement et un peu temps comprendre la langue latine (1644), will be discussed in Chapter VI. Arnauld's chief work, La Logigue, ou l'art de penser (1662), was one of the most important treatises on logic during the seventeenth century; I am using the Scolar Press 1968 fac- j simile of the 1753 GRG, English edition. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jAstronomy, Divinity, Geometry, Law; Music, Physics, and Rhetoric. Wallis presented his 1653 GLA to this "worthy company" when the Society was incorporated by royal charter, and in his then well-known treatise, A Defense of the Royal Society (1678), he makes mention in the third person of the :Occasion: He thereupon in the year 1653; Desirous to serve the ends, and contribute something to the design, of that worthy company (viz . The Improvement of Natural Knowl edge and Publick Benefit;) Published his English Grammar, with his treatise on speech prefixed. This was publickly taken notice of, and known (not only to those eminent persons above mentioned, but) Generally in Oxford. Where very many Students, on pur pose to satisfy their Curiosity, and have a Particular Knowledge of what they had received by Report; Bought the Book and Read it.^ The Gentlemen of Port-Royal and the Oxford Grammarians cross paths in my research in terms of a curious relation ship stemming from Wallis 1 double accusation in the 1699 edition of his Grammatica that "some Frenchmen" had imitated him in a work entitled Grammaire Universe lie . Therefore, ^John Wallis, A Defense of the Royal Society (London: T .S. for Thomas More, 1678), p. 26. ■^Wallis ' claim first came to my attention in the pre notes to the Scolar Press facsimile of the 1753 GRG. Since Scolar is reprinting a whole series of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century grammatical works under the editorship of R. C. Alston, 1 assume the pre-notes are his; Ian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. : 6 I |in addition to translating the accidence and syntax in the 1653 GLA and evaluating the text as an EFL teaching device, I shall also evaluate Wallis 1 justification in making a claim of plagiarism against Port-Royal. My judgments will be based on a detailed examination of the two grammars, a summation of Wallis 1 linguistic contributions within the Oxford Scientific Circle, and a study of recent scholarship dealing with Wallis' work as a grammarian. The Doctor's controversial relationship with the French school of mathe maticians will also be considered in conjunction with the religious turmoil and political upheavals of the period. Michaelj whose English Grammatical Categories I shall ex amine in Chapter VI, also makes mention of Wallis' charge. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II TRANSLATION OF THE GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLICANAE My translation of the 1653 GLA encompasses the complete praefatio and all the sections dealing with accidence and syntax. The latter material covers Chapters II to XV, pp. 67-128. The De Loguela, concerning the formation of speech sounds, and Chapter I, concerning the pronunciation of Eng lish, to not fall within the scope of my work.'*' I have followed as closely as possible the format of the original Latin version. Whatever Wallis put in italics, I have underlined; in addition, marginal titles have been preserved. Wallis uses smaller print to set off his many examples from the main body of his text; I have single- spaced these small-type sections, setting them off from the ■ * " A Xerox copy of the title page and table of contents of the 1653 GLA has been inserted before the translation of the praefatio. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (essential statements Wallis makes about the structure of English . Latin examples have been preserved, juxtaposed with the English, when they contribute to an understanding of the grammatical point under discussion. Both the English and Latin entry are underlined, with the latter enclosed in parentheses. I have preserved Wallis' spelling; however, I have simplified his punctuation somewhat for consistency, bringing it more into line with current practice . All Greek and Hebrew entries have been eliminated, for, in my opinion, Wallis was probably interspersing them merely to add luster to his text. Nothing is lost, I believe, since he includes a corresponding Latin entry in almost every case. Several passages of Wallis' praefatio have been trans lated by various scholars, and I have relied heavily on 2 them. o James Greenwood, An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar (London: R. Tookey, 1711; Menston: Scolar Press, 1968) ; Anonymous, "Of the Original and Progress of the Eng lish Tongue; from the Latin of Dr. Wallis," Monthly Miscel lany or Memoirs for the Curious, II (London: J. Morphew, 1708), 366-372; Susie Tucker, English Examined (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1961); Richard F. Jones, The Triumph of the English Language (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1953). In addition, with respect' to the accidence and syntax of the Grammatica, I have been j strongly influenced in my translation not only by Howard 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fa?’ « f S f Jobannis Wallis, j l l Geometric Profeflbris S A V IL IA N I « . <j^ in celeberrima Academia *3$ O X O N I E N S I . On 35& as £: £3* «$ <3 9 % A M M * J T l C i A ® «! .. ^ Lingua sjfngltcan#, $§ *-u‘ prcfigltur, D E L O QJU E L A§\? 1 x1 fi'a s S o n o r u r a F o r m a t io n c , | g T R A C T A T t l S £ (jrammattcosPhyficus % ^ O X O N I £ , ExcudebatL e o n . L i c h f i e l d e # Acad. Typography. Vtncunc <(£*♦ apud Tni. Ribinfon. 1653. f?1^rr?FTir>, sh rft rf*. rta ? T q e r'e rh pjj p ‘ ‘ fwi V ' W V V V V V V V ' d ' V W ^ I ^ Z > * X TraBatus Troosmialis. De Loquela; five Literarum omnium genuino Sono, ea- iumq; in ore aliifq,- vocis orsanis Formatione. w - » S E C T . x. Z ? e Uquclh in guiftt 3 ajfiflibur. pag.i. 2 . BeVtcaHbus, ecrumq-fsrmatme. 5. 3. 7 >f Confcnaniibu^eaTum^firinaiionc. 14. 4 . B e Sor.it Compojitis. 3 7 - G r a m ' grammatica <*Anghcana> C A P . x. D c LIngux Anglicans Pronunciati- one-, live literarum Sono apud An glos. 45. S E C T . i. Be Literis ingenne, & ptimo dc Ccnfo- multibus. 45. a. Be VoalibiK. 5 1. 3. Be Biphthcngis. 6t. 4 . Be Cenpr.it aliquot CenjunUit. 65. C A P . а. Dc Nomine Subftantivo. 67. 3. De Ardculis, J S c Ibc; corumq; ufu. 71. 4. De Prapofitionibus, canimq;ufu. 73* 5. Dc Atficftivis. 7 5. б . De Gradibns Comparationis. 84. 7. Dc Pronominibus, leu Nominibus Pcrlonaiibui, 85. 8. D cV trho. 91. J. De Verbis Auxiliaribii- nmtllis; Bo, (!jaL\ iviU , mnj, can, Sc;nuft: co- 10. 11. 12 13. M* D e Verbis Auxiliaribus integris. Hove, 8c Am: eorumq; ufii. g6. Defedc Vocis Nominative & A o cufativejaliifq; ad Verborum Syn- taxin fpeftantibus. 98. D e Verbis Anomalis; 102. De Adverbiis, Conjunfiionibus3 Prapolitionibus, 8c Interjeftioni- bus. 108. DcEtymologia; five Vocum De- rivatione, feu cognatione mucua. hi. DePocfi. 127. jum q; uiu. 93- 10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j To those who feel that in this age of the demise of Latin, the Grammatica might have been as well left alone, Wallis would say: "let them talce this along with them: although there are many things, the knowledge of which may not deserve much praise, it is still shameful and scandalous ito be ignorant of them." Grammatica Linguae Anqlicanae Praefatio Since the custom obtains to address a reader at the start of a work, I feel that I ought also to say something in the form of a preface, as well as to indicate the ration ale behind my undertaking this work, and what I have done in it, in order to give an account of the origin and progress of the English language. The English language which we are to discuss, and which is spoken nowadays not only in England, but also in Scot land, is not the same British tongue which the first Britons once used, nor indeed any branch of it, but owes its origin Baker's thesis, "The Contribution of John Wallis to the Methods and Materials of English Grammar," but also by his many helpful letters offering suggestions on how to render my too literal interpretation into more idiomatic prose. Professor Elemer Nagy has also assisted me in these matters. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. |to strangers who brought it over here . For formerly a very ancient and elegant language ob tained among us, in common with the neighboring inhabitants of France. Now whether this Island was joined formerly to France by an isthmus, or whether it has always been sepa rated by the sea, and held communication and commerce only through proximity; or whether we received our first settlers from them, or they from us, or both from the Phoenicians or Trojans, or from somewhere else, the following is certain: both nations formerly had the same language and customs. In my opinion, the French and Welsh, that is, the inhabitants of France and Wales, truly have similar designations; for it is common to change the letters G and W, and what we call Wales, the French call Gales, and the Germans call the Gauls Walshen. It is generally agreed that the people who are called Walli or WaHones are the Gauls or French, i.e., the inhabitants of Artois and adjacent territories; as are also those people of Lombardy, which lies between the Alps and the Rubicon, and is called Gallia Cisalpina. Gascogne is likewise called in Latin, Vasconia. Thus the French words guerre, garant, gard. gardien, garderobe, guise, guile, gage, guichet, guimblet, guerdon, Guillaum, gaigner, gaster, guetter, etc., mean the same as the English words Warre, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. warrant, ward, warden, wardrobe, wise, wile, wager, wicket, wimble, reward, William, to winne, to wast, to wait, etc. Thus, what are called Juglandes, from Latin, in some parts of England, we call French nuts; in other places, they are called Wall-nuts in the same sense (i.e., Walsh-nuts). Likewise the Galatians or Gallo-Graecians are said to have carried away their language out of Gaul with them, and according to Strabo, spoke two languages, their own and Greek. Perhaps Galloway, in Scotland, got its name in the same manner. Great affinity with Oriental languages This old language, spoken in common by both Gauls and Britons, was used before recorded history so we cannot trace the origin of the tongue and its people, by means of his torians whose credibility we may not always depend on; per haps this language, as other mother tongues, had its origin at the confusion of Babel. For it certainly has a great affinity with Eastern languages, based on the derivation of words, as John Davies remarked in his Welsh Dictionary and Samuel Bochart in his Geographia Sacra, who thinks that the very name of Britain is derived from the Arabic or Punic languages, i.e., that Bretannike comes from Barat anach, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [Which signifies the Land of Tin and Lead; he also contends that the British Isles were called Cassiterides by the Greeks, a word with the same signification as Bretannike. Likewise, there is syntactic evidence based on the use of Prefixes and Affixes, and the various permutations of the State, as can be seen in the Grammars of the Welsh Language, published in Latin, by John Davies and John David Rice. (Thus, just as the Hebrews have an absolute state and a state of regimen, so the Welsh have, as they state it, a Primary, Soft, Liquid, and Aspirate state according to the Variety of construction) ; to these I should like to add that the joining of persons' names to the names of their fathers, grandfathers, and perhaps other ancestors, seems to be a custom of Eastern nations . For instance, John David Rice, or in their own dialect, Sion ap Dafyd ap Rhys, is the same as John the Son of David the Son of Rice. And even though nowadays they have family names based on the custom of the English, yet they are for the most part mere patronymicks, for the names Price, Powe1, Bowen, Pugh, Parry, Penry, Prichard, etc., are nothing else but ap Rhys, Ap Howe1, Ap Owen, Ap Hugh, Ap Harry, Ap Henry, Ap Richard, etc. And Jones, Jenkins, Davyes, etc., are also mere patronymicksj Griffin, Morgan, Howe 11, Teudor, etc ., are the names of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jancestors, with the word Ap, i.e., Mab (a son) left out; andj t i so we may explain most of their other names. But we should i not discuss these matters too long; I refer those who want ^ i to be further informed to the British History of Ponticus Virunnius and to the Itinerary and Description of Wales, ^written by Giraldus Cambrensis, and to Mr. David Powell's Latin Annotations on both those authors: they may also consult two philological treatises of Mr. John Davies, one of which is at the beginning of his Dictionary, the other in his Grammar; there are also two similar treatises pub lished by Mr. John David Rhesus, or Rice, and prefixed to his Grammar, one of them by him and written in Welsh, the other by Humphrey Prichard and written in Latin. There are also: the Description of Britain by Humphrey Lloyd, Camb- den's Britannia, and Samuel Bochart's Sacred Geography (part 2, book I, ch. 39, 41, 42). And in addition to these, Bishop Usher's Antiquities of Britain, Richard Versteqan's Antiquities in English, H. Lloyd's Chronological History of Wales (published in English by David Powell), Brerewood1s Enquiries in English, and other books on the same subject where one may find many monuments of uncommon knowledge. And although some Fables may be mixed in with these very ancient writings, as is common in accounts from a very old Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 ! I j jdate, yet without doubt, there is also a great deal of truthj to be discovered. How it was diffused in Gaul and the origin of Modern French In truth, this ancient language of both Nations is now lost almost everywhere. As to Gaul, after the Romans had subdued it, they tried to introduce their own tongue and therefore published all their edicts and other writings in Latin so that the old Cantabrian language in Spain and Old Gaulish in France gradually died out and came under the same subjection as the people, and in its place came a broken kind of Latin called Romance or Romansh, i.e., the Roman tongue; however, it still retained some words of the old language. But when the Franks, or Franconians, a people of Germany, entered France under the command of Pharamond, they brought their own language with them which had the same origin as German and our English. It was not very much different from both these tongues, and was retained in use for some time, and called the Frank tongue until the Gauls and Franks were united into one people and the latter began to learn that corrupt or broken Latin that prevailed among the Gauls. No doubt they mixed many words of their own with it, yet they preserved their own syntax, which is indeed the; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. {same as the Teutonick, and as much different from Roman as from Old Gaulish. Thus we cannot suppose that this syntax was either received by the Romans or handed down to us by the ancient Gauls; (we can also say the same thing about Italian and Spanish syntax, i.e., that the Lombards, Goths, and Vandals brought it here from Germany). Thus modern French had its origin, and still keeps its name as the people themselves did, from the Franks and so the ancient Gaulish language is almost completely lost in France, sur viving only among the inhabitants of Bretagne. How it was diffused in England The British tongue did not have a much better fate among ourselves. It remained uncorrupted until Roman times when Julius Caesar, and others after him, had extended the Roman Empire as far as Britain. The old language underwent less change among us, owing to our greater distance from Rome and the small number of Romans who came here, compared to the Gauls, Spaniards, and Lombards, who were closer neighbors to Rome. Yet, the language in Britain received many Latin words which still remain, but they have been transformed by the rules and syntax of British English so that the changes are not very great. There is no doubt that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jthe Romans, on the other hand, carried several British words away with them, either from Britain or Gaul, a good number of which have been collected by Camden, Bochart, and other writers . But afterwards when the Angles and Saxons, a people of Germany (if we enlarge the borders of Germany, as isorae do, so as to include Denmark and Norway) came into Britain about the same time that the Franks entered Gaul and had gained the kingdom after long wars, they drove out the Britons and their language. Some Britons, nevertheless, still inhabit the mountainous area of Cambria in Wales and are called Welsh. They still retain their language, as do some Cornubians in the farthest parts of Cornwall, and they call it the Cornish tongue. Likewise the people of Ireland (whom, to the best of my knowledge, the Romans and Saxons never visited) along with the Is landers and Highlanders of Scotland (whose language differs very little from Irish) still retain a language very close to Welsh and which per haps was formerly the same, although nowadays it differs somewhat more from the Welsh than either the Cornish lan guage or that of Bretagne in France* however, it is hardly more different from English than modern German is . Scaliger in his book, The Languages of Europe, and others who follow : j him, especially Merula in his Cosmography, consider Irish a : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 jdistinct mother-tongue with no affinity to British. This is clearly a mistake, as Cambden observed formerly, and needs no further proof. Now, whether Irish has any relation to the Basque language of Spain, I cannot say, nor have I the time to make a special investigation, though I rather lean to a contrary opinion. At least from those few specimens of Basque in Merula, I can find no traces or signs of the Welsh tongue, although it is possible that the Irish do retain some Basque words, if they are descended from the Spaniards, as many people believe. They certainly do have many words that are not of British origin, but I cannot tell how they came by them. The word Cambria, although it sounds a little like Cantabria, perhaps has a greater affinity with the Cimbri or Cimmeri (a people of Cimbrica Chersonesus or Jutland) than with the Cantabri (the people of Biscay in Spain) ; for a Welshman is called Cymro or Cumro in his own language, and it is believed that he derives that name from Gomer, who, according to Scripture, was Japhet's eldest son, and the grandson of Noah. But Camden shows that even the French were also called Cimbri or Cimeri in olden times. But what we have said of the Gauls, i.e., that after the arrival of the Franks, they in time recovered their own language though it was called by a different name (I do not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Imean their primitive language but what succeeded it) by reason of their becoming one people together with the Franks; this sort of thing did not obtain in England, for the Britons, although they endured a thousand calamities, were very zealous because of their religion, which was Christianity; thus, the rites and customs of their country would not allow any fellowship with the Saxons, who at that time were heathens. For many years they maintained a deadly hatred against them which has not even to this day been laid aside. The Anglo-Saxon language Now the Anglo-Saxons, as has been observed, having gained possession of the ancient seats of the Britons, called that part of Britain which they had conquered, Eng land , and the tongue which they had brought with them, Eng lish, which we now commonly call Saxon or Anglo-Saxon to distinguish it from present day English. But the Anglo- Saxon, along with present day French, German, Dutch, Swe dish, and Prussian are all branches of Old Teutonic. Anglo- Saxon remained here in a pure and unmixed state until the time of the Normans. It only received some Welsh words, and likewise the Welsh borrowed some of its words, and although Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 | jthe Danes came into England in the meantime, the tongue underwent no considerable change since Danish was almost the! same, or closely akin to it. i How much the Norman language influenced English But when William the Congueror, Duke of Normandy, brought his Normans over and took possession of England, he attempted to alter the language by introducing the French tongue, that being the language he himself used in Normandy. For although the Normans were formerly a people of Norway, once before they used the same language as the Saxons, who had been their neighbors, i.e., the same tongue which was then spoken by the Saxons in England. But after the Normans came into Neustria (long afterwards called Normandy), in stead of their native language, they used French, which was made up of Romance or Franco-Gallick. This was the language which the Conqueror had in mind to use when he settled in England, so he took great care to have all diplomas, public edicts and laws written in the Norman language. But his attempts proved to be unsuccessful because the small number of Normans who came here were nothing compared to the Eng lish, among whom they were scattered. Therefore, the Nor mans lost or forgot their own language before they could Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 make any change in the English. But although for this reason Old English kept its ground, yet this disadvantage certainly followed: many French words, although for the most part of Latin origin, crept into English and many Eng lish words by degrees grew out of use. Thus, as to the derivation of some words, we may judge that the words which the French have that are of German origin, brought by the Franks, although they may now seem to be common to us and to the French, yet we should still consider them originally our own, rather than borrowed from them. The same holds true for old Gaulish words which they retain, now in common with the Welsh, and which we likewise have kept from the old British tongue; we should hold that we received them from the Welsh rather than from the French. From that time, a large variety of foreign words have been received into our language. This is not to say that English is of itself poor and barren, for it is sufficiently enriched with words and elegancies, and if I may so speak, it is copious to an ex cess . Nor is there any word which it cannot furnish us from its own storehouse, in order for us to express our most refined conceptions in a significant and full manner. The poems of our countryman Spenser are a sufficient proof of ; i this . His expressions are neat and elegant, copious and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 | ! jfull of variety, yet pure and beautiful without the help of I I outlandish ornamentation. However, some mixture could j j hardly be avoided considering our commerce with foreigners and the frequent marriages of our royalty with foreigners, to which we may add an excessive desire for novelty, which at least in this latter age, has infected many with an itch ; to bring in foreign words without a real necessity for it. Some people are of the opinion that nothing can be expressed well or elegantly without carrying with it an uncommon sound or a foreign air. The present English language Thus, partly by these mixtures, and partly by the long length of time, which causes considerable alterations in all languages, the old Anglo-Saxon tongue was changed into the present English, which has also been received into the main parts of Scotland. I believe the latter took place at the time the Normans invaded England, for when several of the English Royal Family, nobility, and some commoners were ! driven out of England, they carried their language with them into Scotland. The language, being improved by continual commerce, so prevailed that the English and Scotch tongues are now the same. Perhaps we should rather say that the j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more polite part of Scotland, and that which is nearest to England, has the same inhabitants as those of England, who were descended from the Saxons and were made part of the Northumberland Kingdom; for the Scotch Highlanders call the Lowlanders, as well as the English, Sassons (i.e., Saxons), whereas they formerly called themselves Gael . d Gaiothel. The Highlanders and Islanders, i.e., the inha. .ants of the adjacent isles, who dwell in a large though more unculti vated area of Scotland, which lies northwest, still retain to this day the ancient British, or rather Irish tongue. They are the remainders of the Piets, the most ancient Britons, who, disdaining the Roman Yoke, fled into the mountains and rough country and mingled with the Scots (the descendants of the Scythians or Goths) who came here out of Ireland. The English language, then, which we are to deal with, is a branch of the Teutonick, as is the present German, Dutch, Danish, and those that are akin to them; our language differs from them just as they do from one another. Acknowledged purpose of the work I have undertaken a grammar of this language because I 1 see that a knowledge of it is greatly desired by many Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 foreigners, in order that they may know the many important books that are written in English. There are many people, j i j especially foreign divines, who are eager to read our books on Practical Theology, in which it is generally recognized that our own divines have, with God's help, made notable j I advances, partly because there has been less need for publicj i discussion of disputed matters here than where papal theo- j llogians are intermingled with reformed, and partly due to j the fact that very many pious English people have been tak- i ing up this activity with a sincere piety in their hearts, j j ; According to the more recent customs of the people, they ! I i desire both to understand and to follow the more intimate ! ! I practice of religion. Therefore, listeners are becoming j more anxious to hear the type of orator who expounds the j practice of theology more efficiently. They have also j become more accustomed to reading their religious writings | imore diligently. But, in addition, not only religious t | | ! j writings, but also all kinds of general literature are j j ! available in the English language and are published in Eng- j j lish to such an extent that one may state, without boasting,j i 1 that there is hardly anything of importance m learning thatj has not been translated nowadays into English, at least in a mediocre way. Even at present, day by day, many important Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jpieces of writing are coming out. Although many foreigners are eager to understand our language, some of them complain of the very great difficulty there is in learning it. And, what I wonder at more is that some of our own countrymen have the same notion, imagining English to be strangely puzzling and complex, and not easily reducible to Grammar rules. Hence, when both teachers and learners of the language set about this work for the most part in a confused and disorderly manner, it is no wonder that they should meet with so much difficulty and uneasiness in it. To remedy this inconvenience, I have undertaken to reduce our language, which is basically very easy, to a few short rules by which the language may be made easier for foreigners to learn, and by which our countrymen may per ceive more clearly the rationality and genius of their native tongue. I am not unaware that several others have now and then undertaken this work before me and that their treatments should by no means be underestimated: Dr. Gill, who wrote in Latin; Ben Johnson, in English; and more recently Henry Hexham, in Dutch (whose work, however, I did not have the opportunity of viewing before I had finished mine, indeed not before the final pages were in print). But none of them; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 jhas, in my opinion, taken the right approach best suited to j this task. They all bring our English language too close to the Latin norm (an error into which almost all who have dealt with other modern languages have fallen), and so in troduce many useless principles concerning the cases, gen ders, declensions of nouns, tenses, moods, conjugations of verbs, the government of nouns and verbs, and many other such things which our language has nothing at all to do with. These things only tend to confound and confuse mat ters, rather than to clear up and explain them. Method of presentation Therefore, it seemed to me that an entirely new method should be employed, neglecting the Latin approach and keep ing close to what is particularly suited to the nature of our tongue; in the syntax of nouns, all things are estab lished with the aid of prepositions; in the conjugation of verbs, all things are done with the aid of auxiliaries . Thus, that element which causes great trouble in other lan guages is achieved in English with the least difficulty. Indeed, even in Latin there are some words, both substan tives and adjectives, which are aptotes, i.e., clearly in declinable, such as nihil, instar, sat (used as a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. isubstantive), fruqi, nequam, praesto, etc. They are still supposed to have gender and case like other words, although they remain the same in all cases and genders. Yet if all the Latin substantives were aptotes and all adjectives in declinable, we would without a doubt have heard nothing concerning the Cases and Genders of nouns, and a great many of those rules for nouns which are now necessarily laid down in Latin syntax would then have been useless and would no where be seen. The same thing would also be true in the various formations of the Tenses and Moods of verbs, if all the tenses of each voice were to be expressed only by means of circumlocution, as it is done in some tenses of the pas sive. Since in our language, therefore, things are quite different from Latin, there is no reason for introducing the fictitious and inept conglomeration of Cases, Genders, Moods, and Tenses beyond all necessity and the fundamental nature of the language itself. We have, however, retained the terminology of Latin speakers (even though all of them may not be suited to our language in every respect) partly because their significa tions are so familiar and partly because I do not want to make any unnecessary innovations . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. , 28 j i j Concerning the pronunciation and formation of sounds I have tried to explain pronunciation or what pertains to the sound of the letters, in the same manner as is usu ally done in other languages, i.e., by comparing similar sounds of other languages with our own sounds, as when I state that the English e has the same sound as French mas culine e_. Although in truth it may sometimes happen that in this manner I appear to be explaining the unknown through the more unknown, since some people perhaps do not understand a French sound any better than an English one, nevertheless there exists no more suitable way, in writings such as this, by which the sounds of the letters may be explained without the living voice; thus I thought I would begin here with a new approach; I have accordingly presented a description of the various transformations of letters by the mouth or by other organs of speech; hence, it would seem that the sounds in question (that ought to be produced) could be made known not less accurately than if they were actually uttered with the living voice. However, I would prefer to treat this subject more fully in the separate appended tract rather than to mix it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 2 9 jWith the system of the grammar itself, partly because it seems to show no more similarity to English than to any other tongue, and partly because it is also completely new; nor, as far as I know, has it been attempted by others. For although the formation of certain letters has been dealt yith by a few authors, I do not know if anyone before me has treated the whole science systematically and in one unit. As I approach this task, then, the reader will not be surprised that I am introducing a new distribution of the letters beyond the method of others. Concerning etymology As a closing section to my work, I added a very short treatise on Etymology, in which I describe briefly the simi larities and differences concerning cognates, along with the use of the principal endings, and how foreign words were borrowed and brought into our English language. Finally, I added some onomatopoeical words which are frequently used in our language, indicating the meanings of certain words by their own sound. I have not covered all such sounds, but have shown a few examples by which anyone can see what a large number of them there is. If there are any persons who would believe that this | Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iwork, whatever it is, might have been as well left alone (thinking that the knowledge of the vernacular is worth little), let them take this along with them: although there; are many things, the knowledge of which may not deserve much; praise, it is still shameful and scandalous to be ignorant of them. These are the things which I thought should be called to the reader's attention in a Preface. Part II Grammatica Anglicana Chapter 2 . Concerning the Noun Substantive 3 . Concerning the Articles, A and The; and their use 4 . Concerning Prepositions and their use 5 . Concerning Adjectives 6 . Concerning Grades of Comparison 7 . Concerning Pronouns or Personal Nouns 8. Concerning the verb 9 . Concerning the defective Auxiliary Verbs, Do, shall will, may, can, and must: and their use 10. Concerning the perfect Auxiliary Verbs, Have and Am: and their use Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 1 Chapter 11. Concerning the Position of the Nominative and Accusative Word* and some observations on the Syntax of verbs 12 . Concerning Irregular Verbs 13. Concerning Adverbs, Conjunctions, Prepositions, and Interjections 14. Concerning Etymology; both the Derivation of Words, and related cognates 15 . Concerning Poetry Chapter II Concerning the structure of the English language; and first of all concerning the noun substantive Facility of the English language Up to now we have been concerned with pronunciation; what follows next treats of the whole structure of the Eng lish language; however, this language though considered difficult by certain foreigners (perhaps because in learning it they did not use any rules at all, or poorly arranged rules) nevertheless is, I believe, the easiest of all lan guages; and with the fewest rules, its whole fabric can be given. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 2 | However, while I am expounding these things, do not expect that I should explain each in detail, i.e., those grammatical terms in English which are common among the grammars of other languages, as to what is a Noun, Pronoun, Verb, Participle, etc., or what is a Substantive, Adjective, Simple, Compound, Primitive, Derivative, Active, Passive, Transitive, Intransitive, etc.; or what is Gender, Case, Number, Person, Mood, Tense, and others similar. For this may be clearly a superfluous task, since no one who has any knowledge of Latin could fail to know them. However, do not. expect that therefore in our language, all the features of Latin correspond, for in English and in all modern languages as well, there is a discrepancy from Latin and Greek Syntax (arising primarily from the fact that we do not recognize a diversity of cases) . Since few writ ers pay attention to this when translating into ours as well as other modern languages, they undertake a harder labor than is needed. Gender, case, and number The substantive nouns are assigned among us, neither a distinction of Gender nor Case; whereas in other tongues, especially Latin and Greek, this distinction is found, fre quently with irksomeness, it is utterly eliminated in Eng lish. However, we still recognize a distinction of Number in substantives and also in verbs. If at any time we wish to express a distinction of sex, it is not denoted by various genders of nouns, e.g., mascu line, feminine, and neuter, which do not distinguish the sexes even in Latin (for scortum, mancipium, and amasium, etc., are of neuter gender, yet they refer to masculine or feminine sexj and on the contrary, gladius, vagina, arcus, sagitta, and others innumerable, are of neuter sex, although they are either masculine or feminine in gender). But we as well distinguish sex clearly in the same manner as age (or other external qualities), by distinctive names or at tached adjectives (as is frequently the case in Latin); Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jthus, man (vir), woman (mulier), a youth (juvenis), a mayd (virgo), a boy (puer), a girl (puella), a horse (equus), a mare (equa), a gelding (equus castratus), a colt (pullus), a male hare (lepus mas), a female hare (lepus femina), a_ deer (dama) , a buck (dama mas) , a doe (dama femina) , a stag, a hart (cervus), a hind (cerva), a fawn (damula, hinnulus); a gander (anser mas), a goose (anser femina), a goslin (an- serculus), a hee-goat (caper), a shee-goat (capra), a kid (capellus). Plural number Singular substantives are made plural by adding an -sj however, an e^ is sometimes inserted when the pronunciation requires it. Pronunciation requires it whenever s_, z_, x, sh, or "soft" ch, c, precede immediately. Thus a hand (manus) , a tree (arbor)* a house (domus), a fox (vulpes), a fish (piscis), a maze (labyrinthus), a prince (princeps), an age (aetas), a tench (tinea); plurals are hands, trees, houses, foxes, fishes, mazes, princes, ages, tenches . This is the only way to form plural number nowadays. But in earlier times plurals were formed with -en or -yn. Of these, we retain very few now. Thus, an ox (bos), a chick (pullus)(avium); plurals: oxen, chicken; (though chicken is sometimes used as a singular and has chickens in plural). Likewise a fere (filix), plural, fern (but now, generally fern is considered to be both singular and plural, and there is also the plural ferns, because fere and feres are almost obsolete now). However, some people say (but rarely) housen, eyn, shoon, etc., for houses, eyes, shooes, etc. Some people say a pease (pisun), plural peasen; but, singular a pea, plural peas, is better. However, there are vestiges of the n_ plural formation in certain other words, many of which are ordinarily re garded as irregular, e.g., a man (once manne)(homo)(vir), a woman (mulier); plural: men, women (wemen, weomen) by syncope for manen, womanen. (The Saxons once used to say a man (homo), a weapon-man (vir), a wyfman (mulier).) Thus : a brother (frater), a child (puer); plural, brethren, chil- 1 dren. Also a cow (vacca); plural: keen or kine (alternate, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j cowin) . Also swine (sues) (alternate, sowin), in singular sow; (but now sow is used only for the female, and swine is used of each sex and each number). But for these, some j people retain analogical formations also; thus brothers, I cows, sows. j There are a few other irregulars: a mouse (mus), a^ ! lowse (pediculus), a foot (pes), a goose (anser), a tooth . (dens) ; plural: mice, lice, (or meece, leece), feet, geese, i teeth, and these are about all; sheep (ovis), and hose (ca- liga), are either singular or plural, along with swine, chicken, fearn, peas, as were previously mentioned. Generally nouns ending in £_ substitute a v in the plural; thus wife (uxor), life (vita), knife (culter), sheaf (fasciculus), shelf (abacus), or (scamnum) to which can be added others: wolf (lupus), self (propria persona), half (semissis), calf (vitulus), etc. Plurals are wives, lives, knives, sheaves, shelves, wolves, selves, halves, calves, etc. And nouns ending in s_ or th also change the sounds these letters represent though the letters themselves are retained, as in house (domus), cloth (pannus), path (sem- ita), etc .; plurals: houses, clothes, pathes, etc. Chapter III Concerning the articles Articles Before substantives we very often place two articles (so-called), a_ and the . However, they are actually adjective nouns, and can in this way be used in the same way as other adjectives. To these correspond the articles of French, un_ and le; of the Germans, ein and der. A A (ari before vowels) is the numeral article, and in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 5 jgeneral it signifies one, but with less emphasis. It marks a certain application of general expression to| a particular, (whether species or individual, in any event, ; vague); (thus Patience is a virtue, or a certain virtue) . j Hence, it is used only with the singular (in necessity of ' matter, not of form) like the word unus. But if a more general word is applied to several particular things (whether species or individuals), this is indicated by the plural number. (And this actually is the sole use of plural number) thus men from individuals is clearly specified; and virtues, concerning strength, both species and individuals . The is a demonstrative article, and it signifies the same thing as that, but with less emphasis. It marks a determination of one more particular (by which action a general expression is attached with definite ness) . Thus we say earth where we designate the species itself, or the element of earth, but we understand the earth as the global earth (because a certain individual thing is determined). It is used with both singular and plural; thus when speaking, we are able to determine one person from many individuals. Neither of these articles is used before a general term employed in a general sense (by which action a general sense is applied to particulars) before proper names (because from itself, it implies both the person and the identification) or when another adjective is present, which virtually in cludes the articles (for they are redundant); thus, one man, some man, any man; the world, this world, where one, some, any, virtually include a_, and this virtually includes the. Peculiar phrases are many a man, never a man; for they are different from these, many men, no men, like every man is from all men; the first ones mean many men, no men, all men, one by one taken in a distributive form; the latter, jointly or collectively considered. And not altogether are these unlike those phrases where (after adverbs of compari son, as, so, too, etc., but hardly others) the article a_ is inserted between the substantive and its preceding adjective (which is otherwise usually placed before either one), thusy too small a reward, for so great a labour, and as great a i benefit. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i" ..".. ' ' ’ " 36 ; Chapter IV j i Concerning prepositions : I : I I Use of prepositions As was said before, the English language does not rec- ' ognize in any way a diversity of cases (as especially the Greeks and Latins have) ; but it expresses with the aid of prepositions everything that Greek and Latin carry out partly by prepositions and partly by a diversity of cases. Therefore, I am discussing the use of prepositions, while concerned with noun substantives (for only among sub stantives are they placed in front, and they are of a common disposition, so to speak); besides, it is acceptable to add another method. If the meaning of these few little words is understood, almost all the syntax of nouns is made plain at the same time. For a preposition, being prefixed to the substantive governed by it, shows what relation this substantive has to ; the word (it may be either a verb or a noun, or other parts of speech) by which it is governed. For prepositions are subservient mostly to particular contextual requirements, i.e., the dieturns of logic (as they say) . Nominative and accusative expression A substantive expression prefixed to a verb as in the Latin nominative case (which therefore we shall call for distinction's sake vox nominativa), or used as in an abso lute construction (as they are called in Latin) or even following a transitive verb in the manner of a Latin Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 7 accusative (which accordingly we will call the vox accusa- tiva). is always set up without a preposition before it. It should be noted that in English the substantive is used absolutely, not only like the Latin ablative case abso lute , which is not governed by anything, but also like the Latin nominative case absolute, which is not put before any j verb, for example in titles of books, as the name of Vir- j gil's poem, Aeneis, and, moreover, in constructions where j the nominative case is, as it were, suspended and another j nominative inserted before the verb, as Alexander maqnus, j ille gui orbem vicit, (Alexander the great, the one who conquered the world) a usage uncommon in Latin, rather com- ! mon in Hellenistic Greek, very frequent in Hebrew as well as; English. Qf | I The preposition ojf signifies the same thing as the ; 1 genitive case of Latin, and it allows the same variety of i signification, placed after substantives, adjectives or j I verbs . Thus, The Works of Aristotle. However, before this, it is common to place a possessive adjective, which will be spoken of in its place. I But it also points out the object concerning which, as j ! I ;the Latin de_ is used; and the material out of which, as i \ \Latin ex is used. ! A treatise of virtue (or concerning virtue), a cup of ; Isold. j | ! j ! | Off, on Off signifies separation; as sometimes Latin has abs, ex, as in abscindo, exuo; to which is opposed on, signifying Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. isuccession (exuo to put off, induo to put on), hence, up-on, super. From From signifies boundary from which, thus Latin ab. To, unto To or un-to signifies end to which, or even the boun dary of a relation; for Latin, these work out partly through the dative case, partly through the preposition ad. However, it should be pointed out here that this prep osition is sometimes omitted in speech as well as writing; thus we say, like mee, give mee, tell mee, near mee, etc., where mee, the elliptical form of to mee, is used. Till, untill Till, un-till; nowadays it is used only concerning time . For For signifies the end to which, or for which: it means the same as Latin pro, in the dative case (sometimes); What was prepared for mee is given to another. by. By means per in Latin; as also the ablative of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 9 (efficient cause (foremost as instrumental., or moral) for which Latins most often use the preposition abj sometimes juxta or praeter (not usually in a local sense, but in ex ceptions ) . Whence, beside (juxta), (praeter) (as in juxta latus); i beneath, below (infra) (as in in humili) ; before (ante); behind (post, a tergo); beyond (ultra); behither (on this side) (citra); between, betwixt (inter) are used for two things in distinction to among (inter), which concerns more than two. Hee was slain by his enemy by (beside, near) a spring of water, but wounded first by his own fear, then by his enemies sword. With With indicates the instrumental, like the Latin abla tive of instrument; and sometimes accompaniment, as Latin cum. Slain with a sword; he abideth with me . (Gladio occisus); (mecum moratur). Through Through indicates a means and especially a local means and even a physical or moral means. The beames of the sun, with incredible speed, passe from heaven through the air to the earth, indued with light and heat, by (with, through) — ------- — which it comforteth us, and quickeneth the plants which God hath prepared for us, and given to us, for our use and his glory. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 0 After, etc. I ! After (post), against (contra), among, amongst (inter);j near, nigh (prope); whence next (sometimes nigh'st) (prox- ime) . In In corresponds to the Latin preposition in with the ablative- and it signifies presence in a place, so to speak. Whence, within (intra) . Into Into corresponds to the Latin preposition in_ with the accusative case; and it signifies movement into a place. Out Out or out of means the same as ex_. Whence, without (extra), ab-out (circa) . At At (apud) indicates existence in a place. For which is generally put a^, or, (before vowels) ab, in composition; thus a-bed (in lecto), a-broad (foras), (also, in lato); ab-ove (over) (supra); a-low, a-fore, ab aft (for be-low, before, after) a-board, in a ship (as in, above the floor); ab-out (circa) (as in, in the extremities) a-doing (faciens, facturus, in faciendo); a-dying (moriens, , in moriendo); a-frayd, a-fear1d (territus, in timore posi- j tus); to afright (terrefacio); at-length, at-last (tandem) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i(like, to the length, to the extreme); at-least (saltern) (or, at the minimum); etc. And perhaps a-gainst (contra) ; a-mong, a-mongst (inter); thus, from these they can be de duced . Ward Ward (versus), is always postpositive. ! Thus, to-ward (erga, ad-versus); hither-ward (hue, huc- versus); up-ward (sursum, sus-versum); down-ward (deorsum, de-versum); fore-ward (prorsum, antrorsum, prae-versum, anterius-versum); back-ward (retrorsum, retroversum); heaven-ward, to-ward-heaven, to-heaven-ward (coelum versus) . Touching, etc. Touching, concerning (spectans, attingens, concernens) are in the strict sense participles, even though they are often used as prepositions: thus according to (consonans), belonging to (attinens), and other participles perhaps . Prepositions frequently become adverbs, as do Latin prepositions when used without their cases. Chapter V Concerning the adjective Use of adjectives Adjectives are joined to their substantives without any distinction of case, gender, or even number, in exactly the ; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jsame way as adverbs are joined to verbs or other parts of speech. And generally they are put immediately before, if they are single or not accompanied by other words dependent on them. Their position Thus, a good man, a good woman, a good thing; plural: good men, good women, good things . However, a substantive with its adjective (as indeed any governing word whatever and its entire modifying group, however great) are considered a compound term, and, in that context, this group often takes a second adjective (or even other qualifiers) just as if it were a single word: (and the second a third, and the third a fourth). Thus, a man (vir) ; an old-man (vir senex); a wise old-man (senex pru- dens)j a very-wise old-man (senex valde prudens); three wise-old-men (tres prudentes senes) . Where the adjective article a is prefixed to the substantive man, thereupon the adjective old is prefixed to this same substantive man, and to the substantive old-man, the article an; then, likewise the adjective wise before the substantive old-man, or even the adjective with a modifying adverb, very-wise, and so also the adjective a before the whole aggregate, or (in the plural) three . Where in truth there are several adjectives combined one with the other, or when a single adjective is accompa nied by a word or words of its own, they are often placed after the substantive. Thus, a man both wise and valiant, a man exceeding wise, a man skillfull in many things ; but we even say, a_ wise and valiant man, an exceeding wise man, a skillfull man in many things . Nevertheless, there are two kinds of substantive- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. |derived adjectives, which are always placed before their substantives, and between them, they generally take the place of all sorts of prepositions. Possessive adjectives It is agreeable to call this first kind of adjective a possessive. Thus it is made from any substantive (either singular or plural) by adding -§_, (or -es, if the pronun ciation requires). However, it has the same force as the preposition of, and corresponds to the Latin genitive of possession, or even agent. Thus, mans nature, the nature of man; mens nature, the nature of men; Virqils poems, the poems of Virgil. And the same thing is always done where a substantive phrase occurs, (that is, a primary substantive with words depending on it, so to speak) the possessive -s_ formation being added to the aggregate. The Kings Court; The King-of- Spain's Court (or the Court of the King; the Court of the King of Spain); just as with one substantive, the letter -s_ formative is added to the whole King of Spain aggregate. However, if the substantive plural ends in s_ (as is generally the case) the two s 1s (one the plural sign, the other the possessive) coincide or rather, the first is elided (for euphony's sake); thus, the Lord's House, the House of Lords; the Common's House, the House of Commons, for the Lords's House; the Commons's House. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I And the same thing is often found in the singular num ber, every time a proper name ends in s_: thus Priamus daughter, the daughter of Priamus; Venus Temple, the Temple of Venus; for Priamus's Daughter, Venus 1s Temple. However, those who judge this same -s_ to be added in place of the word his (the first part having been lost by aphesis), an apostrophe sign being always marked or under stood, are completely in error. I do not deny that the apostrophe sign can sometimes be conveniently attached for clearer understanding of the use of this letter -s_, when ithere is need; however, I deny that it always has to be used, or even that therefore it is used to stand for the word his. For it is added both to proper feminine names and to plural substantives, where the word his would be ungram matical; it is even found in the possessives ours, yours, theirs, hers, where no one would dream the word his is meant; thus the word his itself, and the interrogative whose, are nothing more than hee ' s , who 1s, where this -s_ is present as in other possessives. So his written for hees, is the same kind of error as bin for been and whose for who 1s , an error like done, gone, knowne, growne, etc. for doen, goen, knowen, growen, or do 1n, go'n, know1n, grow 1n ; in both cases against the analogy of the language. Respectives The other kind of adjective (which was alluded to) we may wish to call the respective (realizing that the term does not fit very well); the respective denotes almost all respects (except those which are expressed as a possessive adjective); however, such distinctions are put more clearly through prepositions where this is required. For it is nothing but a substantive word used as an adjective; and often it is joined to a following word by a hyphen, just as if the expression were a compound term. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 5 j Thus,, a sea-fish, a fish of the sea (pertaining to in the sea, from the sea, to the sea); a river fish; a wine- vessell, a vessell for wine; a Turky-voyage, a voyage to | Turky; a sea-voyage, a voyage by sea; home-made, made at ; home; self-love; self-murder; man-slaughter, the slaughter j of man; a goId-ring, a ring of gold; and an infinite number | of others . ; Not only with substantives alone, but also with adjec- j tives, participles, and even other parts of speech, are these same sort of respectives used: thus, a sun-shiny day; a self-tormenter, or a self-tormenting man. However, since adjectives are not usually joined to anything except substantives, it ought to be stated that these respectives have become adverbs (like other adjec tives) or that they are joined with substantives, in the first place, thus, sun-shine, self-torment; and then from these combinations are formed adjectives, sun-shin-y, self torment -inq. However, all these expressions may, if one likes, be considered compounds, but if so, they are compounds of the same sort as: etjam, guare, guamobrem, guandoguidem, nihilominus, respublica, senatus-consultum, hujusmodi, etc., in which cases, both words themselves and syntax remain unchanged. Materials However, it should be noted that many adjectives of this sort signify material (and therefore can be called adjectives of material); they take the ending -en sometimes: thus a goId-ring, a golden ring; a brasse-vessel, a brazen vessel, a horn-top, a hornen top; also, a leaden pipe, a wooden beam; an earthen vessel, and others, on rare occa sions . But these material adjectives do not follow such a strict rule, that some cannot at times be placed after their: substantives; nor do other adjectives (except the two kinds already enumerated) whether primitive, or formed from sub stantives or another source, of which quite a few samples could be enumerated here. Adjectives used substantively (that is, their substan- J tives being omitted) are considered substantives, and those i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 6 jemployed adverbially become adverbs . Chapter VI Concerning comparisons Nominal adjectives (as in Latin) are divided by com parison; naturally, the grades assume the comparative and superlative. Grades of comparison The comparative grade is formed from the positive by adding -er; the superlative, by adding -est. Thus, fair, fairer, fairest. But other grades are formed through circumlocution, as in Latin; thus, more fair, most fair, and very fair. Three others (and just a few more) are formed irregu larly. Good, better, best (for bet1st); bad, ill, worse (and worser), worst (from wors1st); little, lesse (and les- ser), lest (from les1st). Many write least for lest, (in order to distinguish it from the conjunction, lest), truly completely against gram matical analogy. I prefer to write the adjective as lest, and the conjunction, least. Comparative and superlative adjectives are also formed of certain prepositions and adverbs (as in Latin) . Thus, : be-fore, former, formost (and first for for 1st); ab-ove, over, overmost; or up, upper, upmost and uppermost; be neath , neather, neathermost, be-hind, hinder, hindmost and hindermost; late, later, latest, and la'st; much and many (sometimes moe), they use more, most, for mo'r, mo 1st. Thus like other adjectives, comparatives and superla- j tives very often are used as adverbs . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I Thus , ill-done, much lesse, lesse pleasant, most learned. Chapter VII Concerning pronouns or personal nouns Certain personals are commonly called pronouns because they take the place of other nouns, so to speak. They are actually the same as nouns, but somewhat irregular. Double status of pronouns However, both in the singular and plural, they occur usually in two forms or states: I call the one rect, and the other, oblique. And they have their own possessive adjectives, usually formed in a special way. In the rect state they are used when a pronoun is absolute, or when it precedes a verb, like the rect case in Latin: At other times, generally in the oblique cases, they occur in any situation, i.e., after a verb, preposition, or other governing word. Enumeration of the pronouns I_ In the Nominative singular, X designates the first person, in the oblique case, raee, of which the possessive is my, mine; in Nominative Plural, we, in the oblique, us, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ; .......... ' ' ........... ” ’ 48 ; I I |of which the possessive is our, ours. j i Thou ’ Thou designates the second person; in oblique, thee; | in the possessive, thy, thine; in the plural (both rect and j oblique), yee, you; thus possessive, your, yours. Hee Concerning the masculine in the language, hee dis tinguishes the third person; him in the oblique, and the possessive, his (for hee1s); however, concerning feminine, shee is used, in the oblique, her; possessive, her, hers; however, for the neuter sex, it is used (both in nominative and oblique case); for possessive, its. In the plural, they is used (for masculine, feminine, and neuter): in oblique, them; possessive, their, theirs . Who For persons, the interrogative in both numbers is who; in the oblique, whom; with things (both in rect and ob lique), what; the possessive, whose (or rather, who's) is possible in reference to things, but is less common than whereof. However, it must be noted that the possessives my, thy,i her, our, your, their, are used with substantives, thus: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j this is my house; and mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, are used without substantives; thus, this house is mine: but we say mine, thine sometimes when a substantive is expressed, although only before a vowel, as my arm or j mine arm. For some people say hern, ourn, yourn, hisn for | hers, ours, etc., but (I believe) these barbarous forms are | spoken rather than written. Moreover, it should be noted that the custom has ob tained among us (as among the French and others these days) of using the plural number when we address anyone, even a single person; but at such times, we say you, not yeel The singular number is usually held to imply disdain or famili arity. Thus, all these pronouns can be set up at the same time in this synopsis. Pronouns in Their Basic State Possessives at at > > •H (0 -H -P -P at G P g 0 r t f r t f 0 r t f Cf1 +J 0 -P •H ,G cn ,G cn rH - t - 1 £ £ p •H £ •H P o IS cn 15 w 1st pers. sing. pi. I Wee mee us my mine our ours 2nd pers. sing. Thou thee thy thine pi. Yee you your yours 3rd pers. sing, masc. Hee him his fern. Shee her her hers neut. It its pi. They them their theirs Interrogat ive of persons Who whom whose of things What whereof Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i This , that The demonstratives this, that (plural, these, those), the same, and the interrogative or relative, which, should not be spoken of as pronouns, but clearly as noun adjec tives . For they do not take the place of noun substantives (as the very term "pronoun" indicates what pronouns ought to do), though of course they may occupy a place alone but they are added to substantives in the same way as all other ad jectives, thus, this man, that man, which man, the same man. If however, they occur without their substantives, as often happens, the substantives themselves arc understood, whereas in other cases, it is usual to consider almost all of them as adjectives. For we say, in Latin, unus, multi, omnes, alii, docti, indocti, etc. In English, one, many, all, others, the learned, the unlearned, etc., omitting the sub stantives; and yet these adjectives are not usually regarded as a class of pronouns. Wfhich The relative which is also used interrogatively, as is usual in other languages. However, it is a noun adjective. In this connection, however, it must be noted that very often, hereof, thereof, whereof; hereby, thereby, whereby, etc., are used for of this, of that, (of these, of those), of which; by this, by that, (by these, by those), by which, etc. What It must likewise be noted that the word what is some- — — — j times employed as an adjective (used interrogatively or in- j definitely), but not in the same sense as we have regarded | Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i 5 1 jthe pronouns above. For the pronoun what signifies quid ; (used substantively) but the adjective what, is preferably, qualis; thus, what man (qualis homo) . ‘ Own i The word own, which is often attached to possessives, ' is clearly a noun adjective and signifies Latin proprium. ; Thus, my own house, your own lands, Alexanders own sword, etc., are word for word, mea propria domus, vestri proprii fundi, Alexandri proprius gladius, etc. Self The word self, plural selves, may be considered a pro noun; however, in certain instances (seeing that it is translated many times with Latin ipse) it is clearly a noun substantive, to which, in fact, hardly any substantive cor responds in Latin; nevertheless, the word persona or pro pria persona comes nearest to it. Thus, my self, thy self, our selves, your selves, etc., are word for word, mea persona, tua persona, nostrae per sonae , vestrae personae, etc. However, I consider himself, itself, themselves, as generally used for his-self, its - self, their-selves; and (with own placed between) his own j self, its own self, their own selves; thus, Hercule's self, Hercules himself, Hercules's own self. Thus the following Psalm 99.4 can be translated conveniently: robur Regis justitiam amat, the Kings self (or the Kings Majesty) loveth righteousnesse; Rex ipse, Regia Majestas, Regis persona pro pria justitiam amat). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. : Chapter VIII Concerning the verb The inflection conjugation of verbs, which in other tongues is carried out with maximum difficulty, is accom plished in English in a very easy manner. Tenses We have only two tenses in the verb, present and pret erite imperfect, along with two participles, active and passive, these participles being clearly adjectives, and having the nature of other adjectives . With the aid of a few auxiliary verbs, nearly everything else is accomplished. Present The present is the theme of itself, as burn; and sig nifies that something is now, when we are speaking. Preterite imperfect The preterite imperfect regularly adds -ed to the theme, as in burned; and it indeed signifies that something was or was to become (at that time about which we are speak ing) . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j Passive participle Also, this same word is a regularly formed passive parti ciple, as burned. The preterite imperfect and the passive participle anomalies will be taken up later. Active The active participle adds -inq to the theme, as burn ing . The same form, substantively used, is a verbal noun, and also takes the place of gerunds, as in burning this, in burning of this. To a verb used indefinitely, the particle to is usually prefixed (however, sometimes it is omitted). The verb used indefinitely is employed after quite a few verbs and adjectives, and even used substantively, quite like an infinitive mood in Latin. Person The distinction of person and number is mostly indi cated through personal nouns prefixed, like the nominative case of Latin (or, in the third person, by other substan tives ) : thus, I burn, they burn. However, in the second person singular, in both tenses, the ending -est is added; and in third person singular, present tense, the ending is -eth, or -s_ (or, if Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jpronunciation demands it, -es) as thou burnest, he burneth (or burns) thou burned'st. However, we say (for the auxiliary verbs will, shall) wilt, shalt, by syncope for will1st, shall1st. Moreover, for hast, hath, there is ha 'st, ha 1th, for hav'st, hav'th (as had for hav'd). And the ending -eth is also omitted in the auxiliary verbs, will, shall, may, can. Both endings are omitted also in imperatives and after the conjunctions, if, that, though, although, whether, and occasionally after a few other conjunctions and adverbs; that is, where Latin would employ imperative or subjunctive mood. In the endings -est, -eth, -ed (and -en, concerning which something will be said hereafter, and in other places) the vowel e, is dropped through syncope almost at will (un less the harshness of pronunciation perhaps prevents it); and where necessary, this omission is signified with an apostrophe; thus plac'd for placed; burn'd, burnd, for burned. Chapter IX Concerning the defective auxiliary verbs Defective auxiliaries The auxiliary verbs do, will, shall, may, can (but with the particle to^ omitted) are prefixed to indefinite verbs; their preterite imperfect tenses are did (for doed), would, should (from older forms, wolle, sholle), might (formerly mought), could; and must (which is not found beyond the present tense) . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I But the verbs let, bid, dare, help, and perhaps some others, are placed before indefinite verbs, with the par ticle to sometimes omitted (just as if they were auxiliary verbs). I therefore think, however, that these auxiliary verbs ought to be called defective, seeing that they are not used beyond the preterite imperfect tense. They do not even have participlesj nor do they admit auxiliary verbs before them. However, two of these verbs, dco and will, often put aside their auxiliary nature and occur as absolute verbs, being then completely formed. For they even have parti ciples (doing, done; willing, willed) and they admit aux iliary verbs, where, of course, they are absolute verbs, and not where they are auxiliaries. Do Do and did indicate present time emphatically, and preterite imperfect time, as I burn, I burned or (emphati cally) I do burn, I did burn. Shall, will Shall and will indicate future. It shall burn; it will burn. However, since it is hard for foreigners to understand when to use one and when the other (for we do not use shall and will indiscriminately) and since no one else, it seems, has laid down any rules by which they may be guided, I have thought it necessary to present these things in this way; any person who shall have observed them, will not make an error. How they differ In the first person, shall simply shows prediction; will, as it were, promise or threat. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 6 In the second and third person, shall expresses promise or threatj will, simply prediction. Thus, I shall burn, you will (thou wilt), he will, we shall, ye will, they will burn, that is, I am predicting this will happen; I will, you shall (thou shalt) he shall, j wee will, yee shall, they shall burn, that is, I promise j that this will come to pass, or I will see to it that it j does . i I i Should and would indicate what was about to be or what j would be about to be, with this distinction: would signi- i fies the desire or the inclination of the agent; should, ! simply the future. i I I Thus, I should or would burn. I May, can j I May and can, with their preterites imperfect might and could, signify ability, with this distinction, however: may 1 and might are used with reference to the right or the possi-| i i bility of doing something; whereas can and could indicate the power of the agent. : | ! Thus, I can burn, I could burn, (that is, I am able, i I was or would be able to burn); I may burn; I might burn, (that is, it is possible or allowable, it was or would be possible or allowable, for me to burn). j Must Must signifies necessity, as I must burn. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 7 I Chapter X i i Concerning the perfect auxiliary verbs The perfect auxiliaries Two other auxiliary verbs, have and am (or bee), are placed before passive participles, in the same way as before i i other words, either adjectives or even substantives. | | j | This is clearly like French, j'ay, je suis; and verbs j with the same meaning in other modern languages, to which j our have and am correspond. j Indeed, I therefore call them perfect, seeing that they have not only two tenses (present and imperfect) but also participles, and they allow other auxiliary verbs to be placed before them (provided that they themselves still re main auxiliaries) just as other absolute verbs do. However, I call them auxiliaries, because they take the; place not only of all preterites perfect and pluperfect, but also of the whole passive voice. Have Have (joined to the passive participle) indicates the ' ! i i preterite perfect, namely, what is now past; or (as they | |say) was done: had indicates the preterite pluperfect, that is, what was then past (at the time of which we are speak- j ing) . Thus, I have burned, I had burned, to have burned, having burned, having spoken. So shall have and will have indicate what will be past, a concept the Greeks can perhaps express with their future tenses; Latin, in truth, expresses this with more difficulty except in verbs of passive form, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 8 thus, (loquutus ero) I shall have spoken, (locutus essem) I should have spoken, for I shall have burned, it will have burned are translated into Latin with more difficulty, un less perhaps we can say that ussero and usserit convey this meaning. For Latin expresses I should have burned, I would have burned, by means of ussissem, ussisse vellem. Am. bee Am or bee (joined to the passive participle) carries all the functions of passive voice (as the Latins say). i I I As is true in other modern languages, and indeed, in part, even in the Latin language. However, this verb is really an anomaly, and has two j |forms in each tense. am, art, is: plural, are n presen . kee ^ bee ' st, bee; plural, bee In preterite was, wast, was i . _ , . plural were imperfect: were, wert, were ^ ---- Infinitive, to be; active participle, being; passive, been. I The prior form (both in present, as well as in preter- i jite imperfect) is generally found where Latin would use in- i dicative mood; otherwise, the second, almost always else- j t jwhere. j i I am burned, if I be burned, I was burned, although I were burned, I have been burned, I had been burned, I shall be burned, I shall have been burned, I should be burned, I_ should have been burned, be burned, to be burned, to have been burned, etc . _______ __ ________________________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 9 Chapter XI Concerning the position of the nominative and accusative word, and some observations on the syntax of verbs I The position of the nominative word In questions and commands, the nominative word is | j placed after its verb (after the first auxiliary, if an 1 I i l ) jauxiliary is present, otherwise after the absolute verb itself)j elsewhere, it is usually (though not always) placed before the verb. i I j i Thus, when I refer to commands, they will be understood! jto include permissions, concessions, and other ideas, as mayj ]be expressed in Latin through the imperative mood. I burn, thou burnest, he burneth, etc., or I do burn, etc. Burn I? burnest thou? burneth he? etc., or do I burn? dost thou burn? doth he burn? etc. Burn I, burn thou, burn he, etc. j However, it must be noted that when an order or a com mand in the second person is expressed, the nominative word j jis very often omitted, as, burn for burn thou, burn yee; [however, in the other persons there may often be a circum locution used with the word let (permit, allow) thus, let me burn, let him burn, let us burn, let them burn; this is used ifor the construction allow me to burn (permit that I burn) allow him to burn, etc. Indeed, this same thing may occur j in Latin, for instance with urat, uramus, etc. (which are j actually of the subjunctive mood). When they are used im- j peratively, they are elliptical for esto ut urat, licet ut i urat. licet urat, sine urat, or other such forms. j It should not seem surprising that unlike most writers, I consider the first person singular to be of the imperative mood, for anyone who admits that ask he (or let him ask), in Ask he as oft as he will, he shall never obtain, etc., is an imperative, will have to make the same admission in regard to Ask I (or let me ask) as oft as I will, I shall never Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 0 obtain. Likewise, the placement of the nominative word (after the verb preterite imperfect, especially of an auxiliary) sometimes makes up for the lack of the conjunction if, as had he asked (for if he had asked), hee had obtained. The position of the accusative word The accusative word (nowadays) is generally put after transitive verbs, thus, he burneth mee. But formerly, it was often placed before, as hee mee burneth, mee hee burneth, just as it is still used today among the Germans and Dutch, and sometimes Englishmen, es pecially poets . : The position of the negative particle j The negating adverb not is placed after the verb (of ! i i s course, after the first auxiliary, if one is present, or, ifj ! ! there is no auxiliary, after the principal verb) ; however, j lit usually precedes other parts of speech. i : i i i It burned nob, it did not burn; not mee; it burned me j not, it burned-not mee, mee it burned-not; it burned not-me, me it burned not. ; The Latin participles in -rus and -dus Generally we express Latin future participles (in -rus and -dus) through an infinitive . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 1 However, also by an adjective of appropriate meaning, (or sometimes by a preposition being prefixed or omitted through ellipsis) so that a circumlocution arises. (Mori- jturus) to dy, or about to dy (as it were, circiter ipsum mori); ready to dy (mori paratus); like to dy (morti vici- nus, more likely moriturus); condemned to die (morti damna- tus). Also, occidendus, to be killed, ready to be killed, like to be killed, or other such forms. Est (as they say) can be used with third person; it is used, preceded by the word there, and is put before a nomi native word. There is heat in the sun. There are no solid orbs, etc . -----' t j Impersonal verbs j j Properly speaking, we do not have any impersonal verbs, Ibut what Latin expresses impersonally, we express personally I with a prefixed nominative word, it. (Placet), (jurat), (oportet me), (virtuosum esse); it^ j pleaseth, it delighteth, it behoveth me, to be yertuous . Nevertheless, if someone says (virtuosum esse) is the nomi native case to the verbs placet, juvat, oportet, and that therefore the verb is personal, I will by no means deny it; [but the English construction must be understood to be; to be yertuous, it pleaseth mee, where either the first nomi- j [native (to be yertuous) is considered an absolute, or the [ .second (it) is redundant, being an emphatic or explanatory j repetition. { I i I | ! ! | i Chapter XII j Concerning irregular verbs j Two warnings It remains to relate a few anomalies concerning a few Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 2 verbs. Concerning these things, two points must first be called to mind. 1. All that follows considers no anomalies except the ! formation of the preterite imperfect tense and the passive j participle. j j For among these irregular verbs j in fact, nothing else j is irregular. i 2 . All the restj however unimportant, hardly touches j | | jupon every exotic verbal anomaly, but only those which are j j i Inative. ! I I ^ i I | I call truly exotic those which we have drawn out from j (Latin, Italian, Spanish, or even from Welsh, which are in- deed many; I call truly native those features which had j their origin from the ancient language of the Teutons or Saxons, which indeed are all monosyllables (or at least are derived from monosyllables) generally; common with us, they are also common to German, Belgian and Danish, etc. (allow ing for a slight adjustment being made), the languages whose (dialects are of the same origin as our English. | | I ! General anomalies I ■ j ! The first anomaly, which is very general, had its ori- I I gin in rapid pronunciation; naturally^ the contraction of I ! i the regular ending -ed, by syncope of the vowel e, the re- | Imaining consonant d being changed into t; as often as the pronunciation becomes more convenient. (And indeed, it seems this ought to be called a contraction rather than an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 anomaly.) Namely, after < 2, ch, sh, jf, k, p and after the conso nants s_, th, harder to pronounce, and sometimes after 1_, m, n, r, if only a short vowel can precede, for these letters can take a -t easier than a -d after them. Thus, plac1t , fish 11 , wak11, dwe111, smel11, etc., for plac1d, fish'd, wak1d , dwell'd, smell1d, or placed, fished, waked, dwelled, smelled, from the verbs to place, to fish, to wake, to smell. But a preceding long vowel is often abbreviated, or it passes by with very brief recognition, which vowels them- i selves draw together in rapid speech. Thus, kept, slept, j wept, crept, swept, leapt, from the verbs to keep, to sleep,j to weep, to creep, to sweep, to leap, But after the consonants b, y, v, z_, and also after the softer ones s_, th, and 1_, m, n, r, a long vowel preceding, the d remains, for they coalesce more easily with d than with t_ because of the similar flow of air through the nos trils . Thus, liv1d , smil1d, raz1d, beleey'd, etc. from the verbs to live, to smile, to raze, to beleeve. But d changes into a harder sound when a long vowel is shortened before 1, m, n, r, and where b, v, become the sound in p and jf or where the softer letters s_ or th occur. Thus, felt, delt, dremt, ment, left, bereft, beleft, etc., from the verbs, to feel, to deal, to dream, to mean, to leave, to bereave, to beleeve. However, where d or t_had preceded, the added letters, d or t_ (in their contracted forms) coalesce with the d or t_ of the root into one letter. Generally, if the root is in t, they combine into tj if the root ends in d, then they combine either into d or t, as the former or the latter let ter may be easier to produce. Thus, read, led, spred, shed,, dread, shred, tread, bid, hid, chid, fed, bled, bred, sped, strid, slid, rid, etc. (or by preference, readd, bidd, etc., as it were, read'd, bid'd, etc.) from the verbs to read, to lead, to spread, to shed, to dread, to shread, to tread, to bid, to hide, to chide, to feed, to bleed, to breed, to speed, to stride, to slide, to ride. Thus, cast, hurt, cost, burst, eat, beat, sweat, fit, quit, smit, writ, bit, hit, met, shot, etc . (or perhaps better, eatt, bitt, hitt, etc. as it were, eat 11, bit11, hit't) from the verbs to cast, to hurt, to cost, (concerning a stated price) to burst, to eat, to beat, to sweat, to sit, to quit, to smite, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 to write, to bite, to hit, to meet, to shoot; likewise, lent, sent, vent, girt, etc. (for lend'd, defend 1d , etc. or lendt, sendt, etc.) from the verbs to lend, to send, to rend, to gird. However, verbs allowing this anomaly or contraction even allow several regular forms no less elegantly than this contraction; thus, placed, fished, beleeved, bereaved, girded, etc. or plac'd, fish'd, etc . Except perhaps caco phony may sometimes impede permitted syncope (thus gird *d) or even (in most frequently used verbs) speed up a pronun ciation; it may commonly induce a more contracted form in certain instances; hence, we generally always say kept, wept; rarely keeped, weeped. j ' Participles in -en i There is also a second common anomaly, but it occurs only in the passive participle; in general the past parti ciple was once most often formed in -en. Of which kind we iretain many even at present, especially where the preterite imperfect contains a distinct irregularity. (And this, in deed. rather than being an anomaly, can be conveniently jcalled another formation of the participle.) Thus, been, taken, given, slay'n, know 1n, etc ., from jthe verbs to be, to take, to give, to slay, to know. : And indeed sometimes after a common contraction or anomaly of the preterite imperfect and passive participle, even this special passive participle resembles an anomaly. Namely, written, bitten, eaten, beaten, hidden, chidden, shotten, rotten, chosen, broken, etc ., rather than writt, bitt, eat, beat, hidd, chidd, shott, rott, chose, broke, etc., are produced in the past participle indiscriminately (but not also in the preterite imperfect), from the verbs to write, to bite, to eat, to beat, to hide, to chide, to shoot, to rot, to choose, to break, and many others of this type . Also these participles are formed indiscriminately; _____ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 5 s ow 1 n, shew 1n, hew 1n, mow1n, loaden, laden and also sow1d , shew'd, hew1d , mow 1d, loaded, laded, from the verbs to sow, to shew, to hew, to mow, to load or lade; and perhaps other jsimilar ones. Special anomalies There are other anomalies, quite a few, especially in the preterite imperfect, but which are rather special, and indeed not many as can be enumerated one at a time. j | ! There are auxiliary verbs, of which we have recounted | fthe anomalies above. Others follow, which we are distrib- j uting into classes : those which have the same form in the j preterite and participle; secondly, others in which the j ipreterite imperfect and passive participle are different. j ! 1 • Win, spin, begin, swim, strike, stick, sinq, sting, fling, ring. wring, spring, swing, drink, sink, shrink, stink, hang, come, run, find, bind, grind, wind; in the preterite imperfect, as in the passive participle: wonne, ; spun, begun, swum, struck, stuck, sung, stung, flung, rung, wrung, sprung, swung, drunk, sunk, shrunk. stunk, hung, come, run, found, bound, ground, wound; but of these, a good many are even formed with a^ in the preterite imperfect; thus, began, sang, rang, sprang, drank, came, ran; and cer tain others, but more rarely. Certain ones even assume -eri j in the passive participle, thus stricken, drunken, bounden. But generally an analogous form is retained on both sides in all cases, thus spinned, swimmed, etc. | 2 . Fight, teach, reach, seek, beseech, catch, buy, bring, think, work; they form fought, taught, raught, | Is ought, besought, caught, bought, brought, thought, wrought.j But out of these, many retain quite a few analogies, thus ; teached, reached, beseeched, catched, worked, etc . j 3 . Take, shake, forsake, wake, (awake), stand (once j stead), break, speak, bear, shear, swear, tear, wear, weave,j jcleave, cleave (once clive), strive, thrive, drive, shine, i rise , smite, write, bide (abide), ride, choose (chuse), Itread, get, beget, forget, seethe; they form on both sides, itook. shook, forsook, woke, awoke, stood, broke, spoke, bore, shore, swore, tore, wore, wove, clove, strove, throve, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 6 drove, shone, rose, smote, wrote, bode, abode, rode, chose, ! trodd, qott, beqott, forqott, sod . But in both instances j we even say thrive, rise, smitt, abidd, ridd. In the pret erite imperfect, certain ones are even formed with a_; thus brake, spake, bare, share, sware, tare, ware, gat, begat, forgat, and sometimes certain others, but more rarely. Of these, quite a few are even formed with -en in the passive participle; thus taken, shaken, forsaken, broken, spoken, born (bor1n), shor1n, swor1n, tor'n, wor1n, woven, cloven, thriven, driven, risen, smitten, written, ridden, chosen, j trodden, gotten, begotten, forgotten, sodden. Many even j retain an analogy on either side; thus waked, awaked, i beared, sheared, weaved, cleaved, thrived, abided, choosed, j seethed, etc. j 4 . Give, bid, sit; in the preterite imperfect, they ; make gave, bad, sate ; in the passive participle, given, j bidden, sitten. But on either side, bidd, sitt. And also i at this point there should be mentioned many from the first and third class, which form the preterite imperfect even in !a. ! I 5. Draw, know, snow, grow, throw, blow, crow, (like a rooster), fly, slay, see, ly; they make the preterite im perfect drew, knew, snew, grew, threw, blew, crew, flew, j slew, saw, lay; passive participles through -en, draw1n, ; know1n, snow'n, grow 1n, throw 1n , blow'n, crow 1n, flyen (flow'n), slay 1n, seen, ly1n (lay 1n) . But on either side, draw 1d , snow1d, throw 1 d, blow'd, crow'd. And from flee may be fledd. From go may be went (in older times, wend) and ithe participle, go 1n . j j These are (what I remember) all the verb anomalies of j ;the English language; the others are either non-existent or ! certainly very very few. ; Chapter XIII Concerning adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections ! Adverbs Adverbs have the same nature among us, as among Latin Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 7 speakers and other people, being attached not only to verbs ;so much, but to other parts of speech as well. Of which the main ones follow: Adverbs of time: when, now, then, to-day, to-morrow, yester-day, ever, never, long, a great while, till, un-ti11, since, agoe, here-to-fore, here-after, allready. Number: how-oft, so-oft, once, twice, thrice, four times; oft, often-times, many-times; seldome, all-ways (as it were in all contexts, gwaith, with a Welsh accent). I Order: first, after-ward, next, secondly, thirdly, | lastly, at-last, at-length, etc. i i Place: where, here, there, every-where, no-where, any-1 where, some-where, some-where else, else-where, with-in, with-out; whither, hither, thither, some-whether, in, out; which way, this way, upward, downward; whence, (from whence) hence, thence; to-gether, a-sunder, in-sunder; near, hard- by; far-off. j Affirming: yea, yes, 1_; perhaps, perchance, peradven- | ture, it may be . ' Denying: (used alone) no, (used connected with some thing) not. | Showing: lo, behold. ! Likeness and comparison: how, so, as, how much, more, lesse , most, least, very, very-much, alltogether, who1ly, j allmost, onely, but, rather, than, scarce, hardly, well, ii11, better, worse, best, worst, learnedly, valiantly, I ’ quickly. j i Nearly all other adverbs (and quite a few just enumer- j ated) are either paraphrases, as a long while, a great whilej j ago, many times, etc., or prepositions, or adjectives used j ^adverbially; thus, before, near, beside, under, be low, etc.;i I much, little, more, etc. Or finally, some are formed from j certain adjectives, by adding the ending -ly; thus, learn- I edly, valiantly, suddainly, thirdly, etc. | I ; j Conjunctions ■ ! j Conjunctions likewise have the same use in English as among Latin speakers, and others. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 8 Of which these are the principal ones : and, allso, likewise, nor, neither, whether, or, either, but, for, be cause , wherefore, therefore, if, then, though, a11-though, not-withstanding, yet, that, seeing, since that, when as, except, unlesse, at-least, even. However, if anyone prefers to call a few of these words adverbs, or to consider some of the adverbs a class of con junctions, it is not a matter worth fighting over, since even among Latin speakers a given word must often be con sidered sometimes as an adverb, sometimes as a conjunction. Nor does it make much difference if adverbs be placed in the same class as conjunctions and interjections, there being very little distinction among them. j i I frepositions I I i | Prepositions even share the same function as in other jlanguages; but because we do not recognize case distinc- i I tions, prepositions are more frequently used in English than in Latin. In fact, concerning what was stated above, where this jwas covered concerning the nominal substantive, we have jalready related it. j i Interjections ; We do not have very many interjections. 0, oh, ah, fi, j i ha ha he, st, are in common with Latin speakers . Alas de- j I i •notes grief; tush is used for contempt; foh, abhorrence. Wo is more often a noun. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 Chapter XIV I i I Concerning etymology We have considered separately, one by one, the parts of speech; I have considered this to be worth-while, to observe something of them mutually, their harmony and relationship; j one also should consider their etymological origin, one fromj the other. i I I i ; ! j Possessive adjective j | i i The possessive adiective is made of any substantive j ! i i I ! (either singular or plural), by adding -s_, as was stated j I i iabove. I | Adjective of respect j ! Anywhere you please, even a substantive, positioned as ! ! an adjective, degenerates into an adjective which above we ! j have called an adjective of respect. ! ; i : i i : j Verb formation I ! ---------------- S j j | Thus, quite a few substantives, or even adjectives (and! i ! ja few other parts of speech sometimes) used verbally, de- ! j j Igenerate into verbs; and they signify the application of the jsame sort of rule at any time; however, the vowel often being lengthened, the consonant softened. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 0 Thus , a house, to house; brasse, to braze; glasse, to glaze; grasse, to grase; price, to prise; breath, to breathe; shade, shadow, to shade, to shadow; a fish, to fish; oyl, to oyl; rule, to rule; love, to love; life, to live; strife, to strive; further, to further; forward, to forward; hinder, to hinder, and an infinite number of oth ers . However, sometimes (especially with adjectives) the ending -en is added; thus, hast, to hast, to hasten; length, to lengthen; strength, to strengthen; short, to shorten; fast, to fasten; white, to white, to whiten; black, to I black, to blacken; hard, to harden; soft, to soften; and • many others. i ! I | I i ! I I participles and nominal l yerbals, in -ed, -en, -ing, -er j Thus from verbs (whether from these or such others at ! lany time) are formed participles, generally one passive j(frequently by adding the ending -ed or -en) the other ac- j tive (by always adding the ending -ing), used as a substan- itive; as a gerund and as a verbal nominal (signifying ac tion), it carries those functions as have been shown above. But joined to the ending -er, it becomes a noun, signifying i I !a verbal agent. ■ j To hear, hear'd, hearing, a hearer. To give, given, j giving, a giver. There are numerous others formed at will, j I ; I i . j Adjectives of abundance in -y 1 j ! | Adjectives of abundance are formed from substantives | by adding the ending -y_, also sometimes with a softening of the consonant, but rarely with lengthening of the vowel.____ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 1 A lowse, lowsy; wea 1th, wealthy ; health, healthy; worth, worthy; witt, witty; water, watery; earth, earthy; j wood, a wood, wooddy; air, airy; a heart, hearty, and also [innumerable others. To this ending corresponds the German -is.- I Adjectives of fullness | in -full Adjectives of fullness are formed from substantives by j l adding the ending -full; this is the adjective full. ; Joy, joyfull; fruit, fruitfull; youth, youthfull; care, ! carefull; use, usefull; delight, delightfull, and many [ others. i I In -some i ! Sometimes, with almost the same meaning, but with some I jdiminution, the ending -some is added. (that is, aliquid.) j pe1ight, delightsome; game, gamesome; irk, irksome ; burden, burdensome; trouble, troublesome, and others. | Adjectives of want, or j weakness; in -lesse However, on the other hand, when the ending -lesse is | j | added to substantives, the meaning indicates a lack in the j ladjectives . | I | ; | Thus, worthlesse, wittlesse, heartlesse, joylesse, j carelesse, uselesse; thus, comfort, comfortlesse; sap, sap- lesse, and many others as these. ! Un-, in- Very often prefixed to adjectives, the privative Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 2 particles un- and in- are used with the same force, but the 'latter one is used only with words from Latin, which permit I i the same composition among Latin speakers. Thus, pleasant, unpleasant; wise, unwise ; profitable, unprofitable ; patient, impatient; thus , unworthy, unhealthy, unfruitful, unusefull, and many others. However, it should be noted that not all Latin words jusing in- signify privation; nor do all the English words j ( written in in-, for we have many from French, and many of (Latin origin are written indiscriminately in in- or en-, (where the true signification of the Latin preposition in is (retained. Thus, inqender, implant, inqrave, and many others jwhich, however, are even written indiscriminately with en-, [ engender, emplant, engrave, etc., of which the participles (are engendered, emplanted, engraven, etc. And in fact it j jcould be wished (in order to please foreigners) that words j (of this kind taken from the French should retain the en- of (French perpetually, rather than that the Latin in-, from (where this same en- was derived, should be restored. For (the particle un- is always privation, en-, never so, but I in-, now is and now is not, for in these usages which are (written indiscriminately with in- or en-, there is no priva- (tive; while most other words of like meaning derived from Latin, are privative. ! ( Pis-, mis- ! Also the prepositive particles dis- and mis - (derived jfrom the French des and mes) generally signify the same ithing as un-, however, with this distinction: dis- signi fies opposition rather than privation (it corresponds, if in Ifact, to the Latin preposition de^ as it often is employed in (word arrangement); mis-, so to speak, suggests a certain (error, and can very often be translated as badly or falsely. ( To like, to dislike; honour, dishonour; to honour, to dis honour ; to grace, to disgrace; to deign, to disdeign; i chance, mischance ; to take, to mistake; deed, misdeed, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 3 others of the same kind. What is derived from Latin meanings through de_ or dis, has the same meaning as earlier, and retains the meaning; (thus , distinguish, detract, defame, detein, etc. I Adjectives of likeness in -ly The ending -ly added to substantives (and sometimes adjectives) forms adjectives signifying a certain likeness i j lor agreement. : I i I j A giant, giantly (giant-like); earth, earthly; heaven, heavenly; worId, worldly; God, godly; good, goodly; and other similar ones. It corresponds to the German and Bel gian endings -lich, -lick. I j Adverbs of likeness in -ly j In the same way, the ending -ly added to adjectives forms adverbs of similar meaning; thus in Latin, -e, -o, and -ter, as has been stated above. I piminutive adjectives in -ish The ending -ish when added to adjectives especially (and also substantives), signifies diminution. I : Green, greenish; white, whitish; soft, softish; a j I thief, thievish; a wolf, wolvish; a child, childish . And | jmany others are generally formed at will. j I I i Diminutive substantives | S However, we have other formations of diminutives in j Isubstantives (but occurring more rarely), thus a hill, a j hillock; a part, a parcell; a cock, a cockrell; a pike, a^ I pickrell; a poke, a pocket (which is a French ending); a^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 4 lamb, a lambin; a goose, a goslin (which is a German ending) and other similar ones, although few occur. I ! i Abstracts in -nesse I Abstract substantives are made from concrete adjectives by adding the ending -nesse. White, whitenesse ; hard, hardnesse ; great, qreatnesse; j skillfull, skillfullnesse, unskillfullnesse, and an infinite; jnumber of others. To this corresponds the German ending | l-heyt. i 1 ! Tn -th | ; I I | However, there are other abstracts (partly derived from) I ; ! ^adjectives and partly from verbs) which are formed by addingj I I I jthe ending -th (sometimes done with a slight pronunciation i I Ichange) . ! i ! i | Long, length; strong, strength; broad, wide, breadth, width; deep, depth; high, height; (or by preference, j i heighth); true, truth ; warm, warmth; dear, dearth; slow, j sloth; merry, mirth; hail, health; well, weal, wealth ; dry, drowth, droughth, dry 1th; young, youth; also, moon, moneth, • ; and room, roomth. j To which are related certain words derived from verbs: j dy, death; till, tilth; grow, growth; mow, mow1th; steal, stealth; bear, birth; hear, hear 1th; rue, ruth (which word joften is put out of use), also see, sight; sigh, sigh (or j I s ighth) ; flee , fly, flight; weigh, weight; fray, freight; j j to draw, to drink, draught; defray, (from French frais) i i fraight, which by preference may be written f1ighth, fighth,i ;etc., just as they even may be pronounced by certain people;j unless because custom may have dictated otherwise, generally ;h may not be written twice. The following retain the same jform: faith, spight, wreathe, wrath, broth, moth, froth, ibreath, sooth, worth, light, laith, wight, nought, ought, ! ________ ____________________I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 5 and perhaps other similar ones, of which the earlier ones have been either clearly put out of use or rarely occur, and, in any event, generally escape notice. Chances are Ithey yield to fey (or foy) spy, wry, wreak, brew, mow, fry, ; bray, say, work, etc . 1 j -ment, -age -ment and -age are clearly endings from French, and j they signify the same thing among us as among other people; j and in general they rarely occur unless in words derived | from French, thus, commandment, usage, etc. j | | Coqnate words j ! There are among us groups of related words, changed in j ! . i various ways, but usually with a common root, cognates with j i j |the same meaning, just as are found in other languages. j ! I ! i j I I Thus, to beat, a bat, (batoon), a battel, a beetle, a_ j I battle-door, to batter, batter, all of which are cognates j [with the same meaning. Also, take, touch, tickl, tack, j j tach, tackle, which all signify a local connection. And the isame thing is also seen in other instances here and there. ! i j J Signs of the properties j of a sound I : I Also it should be noted, in the native words of our ( i s ilanguage, that a great many letter sounds with significant j ; j ! i iproperties are associated with certain meanings . ] | ! ! And to such an extent that the letter sounds which are j thin, sharp, heavy, dull, soft, bold, clear, indistinct, or j stridulous, often suggest qualities in the things signified, jand sometimes even several qualities in the same word, jthough it be a monosyllable. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 6 Str- Thus words beginning with str- convey the idea of (strength or exertionj thus, strong, strength, strive, i strike, struggle, stretch, strain, straight (which is gen erally extended in length), strout, could be such. St- also suggests strength, but to a lesser degree, that is, enough to preserve what has been gained, rather j than enough to make new gains; thus, stand, stay, steady, ^steadfast, stout, sturdy, stick, stickle, stiff, stop. i i ; Thr- Thr- suggests a more violent movement, as, throw, j ! thrust, throng, (usually said of a crowd), throb (said of a ! I very sharp, painful heart agitation), through, etc. I ■ f 1 Wr- I j Wr- signifies a certain obliqueness or distortion, as i wry, wreathe, wrest, wrestle, wring, wrong, wrinch, wrench, | |(generally an obsolete word) wriggle, wrangle, wrinkle, i | wrath, wrist, which generally twists whatever way back, one j |way or the other. I I I \ j Sw- t Sw- usually signifies a silent or somewhat lateral j 'movement; thus, sway, swim, swing, swift, sweet, switch, ' I swindge, in which the consonants are generally all quiet, ' land the vowel sounds very soft. ; j I ! i Sm- ; I 1 Sm- does not differ much in smoothe, smile; smite sig- j Inifies the same thing as strike, but the word is milder; smart signifies a sharp pain, a smart blow in the strict j jsense signifies a blow of the kind which proceeds at first | jas a silent movement (which sm- indicates) to a sharp j (severity (which -ar indicates) suddenly ended (which the -t j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 7 (indicates) or which stings sharply with a silent motion. 1 I Cl- j Cl- suggests a certain adherence or tenacity, as cleave, clay (sticky earth), cling, clime (clamber), to clamb up, clammy, close, to close, a clod (a little lump of j hard earth), a clot, a clot of blood (coagulated blood), a j j clutter, a cluster, etc . ! J ; j s R ~ ! i Sp- implies a dispersing or scattering, thus spread, ' spring, sprig, sprout, sprinkle, split, splinter, (which is ; distinguished from a fissure), spill, spitt, sputter, spat- j ! ter, etc . j I SI- | ; ! ■ S1- signifies a silent flow, so to speak, or a slightly! jobservable motion; thus, slide, slip, slippery, slime, sly, j sleight, slit, slow, slack, slight, etc. . I ! : ! j -ash, -ush ! | | ! Also the ending -ash in crash, rash, gash, flash, | clash, lash, slash, plash, trash, etc., indicates something j (loud and sharp. But -ush in crush, rush, gush, flush, I blush, brush, hush, push, signifies something more indis tinct and quiet. However, in either case a quick and un expected motion is connoted. i -ing, -ink | Thus in fling, sling, ding, swing, cling, sing, ting, wing, sting, etc., the ringing of the ending -ng and the (acute vowel i_ signify very fine motion, so to speak, or continuous shaking, in fact, finally interrupted and vanish-j ing, but not suddenly. However, in tink, wink, sink, clink,; ! chink, think (ending in a voiceless consonant), rather a j (conclusion or a sudden termination is signified. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i -inql, -inkl ! -anql, -umbl | —ambl If 1 is added as in j ingle, tingle, tinkle, mingle, j sprinkle, twinkle, a number of motions, so to speak, (minutel ;ones) or a frequent repetition is signified, and the same | jidea of a number of motions, but less subtle (on account of | the clearer vowel a_), is signified in jangle, tangle, ' spangle, mangle, wrangle, brangle, dangle ; also in mumble, j j grumble, jumble, tumble, stumble, rumble, crumble, fumble, j letc., where likewise, an obscure u signifies something more 1 'obscure or blunt, and the combination of consonants -mbl signifies, so to speak, a confused convolution, as in I ramble, scamble, scramble, wamble, amble, etc . In nimble, the acute vowel signifies quickness. In sparkle, sp- signifies dispersing, ar, a sharp noise, k, a sudden interruption, JL, a frequent repetition; and similarly: ;in sprinkle, except in may signify the subtleness of the dispersing of tiny drops. Thick and thin differ in this way: because the former ends with an obtuse consonant, the lat- ! ter, an acute one. In like manner in squeek, squeak, squele, squall, braul, wraul, yaul, spaul, shreek, screek, shrill, sharp, shriv11, wrinkle, crack, crash, clash, gnash, plash, crush, ■ [ hush, hisse, sisse, whist, soft, jarr, hurl, curl, whirl, buz , bussle , spindle, dvr' ogle , twine , twist, etc ., it is possible to observe in t same manner a countless number in agreement with the same t aificant features of sound. And ; this indeed so frequently may be seen as compared to ours ; in this feature than in hardly any other language I know. To such an extent that generally in one monosyllabic word ; (if you may remove the ending, ours are all generally of such a kind), this is expressed clearly, which in other ! languages is able to be arranged with or without difficulty,, if not by compounds or derived compounds, then sometimes by j a long circumlocution of verbs . And indeed very many are 'formed in this manner from our native words; and I do not doubt that once for a long period several were formed in ; this way, before the intrusion of a strong hodgepodge of French words into our language led out many native words into exile and oblivion. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. |B o r r o w e d L a t i n w o r d s f r o m I F r e n c h i i W e h a v e m a n y b o r r o w e d w o r d s f r o m L a t i n ( a n d i n d e e d ; ^ g e n e r a l l y t h e y a r e a l l n e i t h e r m o n o s y l l a b l e s , n o r f o r m e d ! ; i i f r o m m o n o s y l l a b l e s ) o f w h i c h , i n t r u t h , t h e F r e n c h b o r r o w e d | i t h e g r e a t e s t p a r t b y p r e f e r e n c e f r o m L a t i n , a n d w e , f r o m t h e ; f o r m e r . NominaIs English nominals (substantives as well as adjectives) are made from Latin, often having been handed down in an i ending of the oblique cases, often with another very small intervening permutation, which is common among the French as it is generally with us. Thus, natura, gratia, dementia, synodus, inqeniosus, I inqenuus, ornamentum, vitium, infans, prudens, quies, unio, : nectar, honor, imago, multitudo, majestas, virtus, poema, poesis , phoenix, audax, liberalis, specificus, possibilis, implacabilis, status, facies, etc. gave nature, grace, clemency, synod, ingenious, ingenuous, ornament, vice, in fant , prudent, quiet, union, nectar, honour, image, multi tude , majesty, virtue, poeme, poesy, phoenix, audacious, liberal, specifical, possible, implacable, state (estate), face, etc. In this way, an infinite number of others were once formed and are being formed from day to day. Where another more notable mutation occurs, we gener ally accept it from French; thus from Latin bonitas, leo, eleemosyna, eleemosynarius, tempus, novus, extraneus, fons, mons, acris, came French bonte, lion, almosne, almosner, temps, nieu, estrange, fountaine, mountaigne, aigre . From i whence, English bounty, lion, almes, almner, (and ambry, ;i.e., alm1ry) tense, new, strange, fountain, mountain, eager . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ; I n o u r c h a m b e r , t e n d e r , c i n d e r , e t c . , f r o m t h e L a t i n c a m e r a , t e n e r , c i n i s , e t c . , w e h a v e t h e i n s e r t i o n o f t h e l e t t e r s b a n d d f r o m t h e F r e n c h , w h o w r i t e c h a m b r e , t e n d r e , c e n d r e , f o r c h a m 1 r e , t e n 1 r e , c e n 1 r e , e t c . , w h e r e i n t h e c o u r s e o f p r o n o u n c i n g ( a t f i r s t p e r h a p s n o t b e i n g v e r y c a r e f u l ) , t h e y m i g h t w o r k t h e i r w a y i n a f t e r t h e s y n c o p e o f t h i s l e t t e r t o o k p l a c e , a n d t h e r e a f t e r e v e n i n w r i t i n g ( t h u s e v e n i n d i s s e m b l e , r e s e m b l e , a s s e m b l e , h u m b l e , t r e m b l e , e t c . , f r o m s i m u l o , s i m i l i s , s i m u l , h u m i l i s , t r e m u l u s , a n d m a n y o t h e r s ) . J u s t l i k e w h a t i s s e e n i n L a t i n s u m p t u s , e m p t u s , C o m p t u s , e t c . Verbs Verbs which we have borrowed from Latin are formed partly from the present tense, partly from the supine, hav ing been handed down on both sides, moreover, sometimes with a slight mutation in the ending. From the present are formed extend (extendo), spend, expend (expendo), conduce (conduco), despise (despicio), approve (approbo), conceive (concipio), relinquish (relin- quo), distinguish (distinquo), diminish (diminuo), replen ish (repleo), vanquish (vinco), establish (stabilio), cor respond (correspondeo), contain (contineo), administer (ad- ministro), govern (guberno), concern (concerno), certify (certifico), reply (replico), multiply (multiplico), supply (suppleo), and innumerable others . From the supine are formed supplicate (supplico), demonstrate (demonstro), dispose (dispone), exspatiate (exspacior), suppresse (supprimo), exempt (eximo), collect (colligo), consecrate (consecro), imprecate (imprecor), con tract (contraho), mix (misceo), concoct (concoquo), reject (rejicio), exact (exigo), afflict (affligo), etc., and very many others. Even from both sides, verbs are often formed among us, however, generally with somewhat of a diverse meaning; and of these we generally borrow them immediately from Latin, or another, unless French was truly in the middle . Thus com pound, compose (compono); expound, expose (expono); refer, relate (refero); confer, collate (conferp) ; comprehend, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. comprise (comprehendo); defer, delate (defero); imply, implicate (implico); speed, expedite (expedio); confound, confute (confundo); and quite a few others of the same type. French words However, there are a few others, nouns as well as verbsj purely French, not derived from Latin, which we have carried over into our language. Thus garden, garter, buckler, to advance, to cry, to plead, and others, from the French jardin, jartier, bou- clier, avancer, cryer, plaider, etc. Although actually there may not be so many purely French words in the French language itself, for the greatest part of this same language is of Latin origin a long way back. Teutonic words However, it is doubtful that once in olden times the Teutons could have borrowed from Latin, many words which to us are generally common with German, or the Latins from the Teutons, or in short both peoples from the same common source. T h u s w i n e ( v i n u m ) , w i n d ( v e n t u s ) , w e n t ( v e n i ) , w a y ( v i a ) , w a l l ( v a l l u m ) , w a 1 l o w ( v o l v o ) , w o o 1 1 ( y e 1 l u s ) , w i l l ( v o l o ) , w o r m ( v e r m i s ) , w o r t h ( v i r t u s ) , d a y ( d i e s ) , d r a w ( t r a h o ) , t a m e ( d o m o ) , y o k e ( j u g u m ) , e a r t h ( t e r r a ) , o v e r , u p p e r ( s u p e r ) , a m ( s u m ) , b r e a k ( f r a n g o ) , f l y ( v o l o ) , b l o w ( f l o ) , a n d i n n u m e r a b l e o t h e r s o f t h e s a m e k i n d . F o r I d o n o t d o u b t t h a t t h e T e u t o n i c l a n g u a g e i s o l d e r t h a n L a t i n i t s e l f ; n o r s h o u l d i t b e f u r t h e r d o u b t e d t h a t t h e L a t i n l a n g u a g e , w h i c h h a s p a t c h e d t o g e t h e r a g r e a t h o d g e p o d g e o f v e r b s n o t o n l y f r o m G r e e k , e s p e c i a l l y A e o l i a n , b u t a l s o f r o m o t h e r n e i g h b o r i n g t o n g u e s ( p u r e O s c a n a n d o t h e r s , w h i c h Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j " ■ ' ' 8 2 i I ionce actually went out of use to such a degree that hardly t their vestiges survived) even accepted quite a bit from Teutonic. It is certain that English, German, and other languages originating from Teutonic, retain quite a few ' words derived from Greek, which the Latin language does not , acknowledge, thus path, pfad (semita); ax, achs (securis); mit (cum); ford, pfurd (vadum); daughter, tochter (filia); mickle (multum, magnum), and other similar ones. However, when they would have accepted these immedi ately from Greek without the intervention of Latin, why were' not others also immediately considered to have sprung from the same source, even though they may have been discovered simultaneously among Latin speakers? But concerning the etymology of our language, this is enough to have related. Chapter XV Concerning poetry English poetry is generally as rhythmical as that among all neighboring races. The number of syllables is especially observed, never theless, not altogether with the neglect of quantity. There are various kinds of meter, and in fact, they appear daily according to the judgment of the poets. However, it should be noted (especially by foreigners) that our poets, as those of other nations, frequently take upon themselves the greatest liberty in transposing words from the order which they are in the habit of finding them in prose. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1603 1605 1606 1611 1616 1617 1621 11623 1625 1635 1637 1639 CHAPTER II INTELLECTUAL AND HISTORICAL MILIEU Histogram of Seventeenth-Century England John Wallis 1616-17 03 •1625 James I Gunpowder Plot Penal laws against Papists Authorized Version, King James Bible Death of Shakespeare Sir Walter Raleigh executed for implication in plot to dethrone James I; sailing of Mayflower Sir Francis Bacon impeached for receiving favors from parties in suit Shakespeare's First Folio 1649 Charles I Founding of French Academy i Descartes 1 Discourse on Method Book of Common Prayer forced on Scotland 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 4 1 6 4 1 1 6 4 2 - 1 6 4 6 1644 1646-1716 1648 1649 1651 1653 1655 1660 1660-1669 1660-1685 1662 1665 1666 I 11672-1674 i Il678 1683 1685-1688 1685-1759 1687 30,000 Protestants massacred at Ulster Civil War Milton's Areopagitica Leibniz Second Civil War Charles I beheaded H o b b e s 1 L e v i a t h a n Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector Press censorship; rigid Puritanical rules in arts and letters Founding of Royal Society Pepys' Diary Charles II Acts of Uniformity; clergy, fellows, school masters must accept Book of Common Prayer Great Plague Great Fire; St. Paul's restored by Wren War with Holland Dryden's All for Love; Papists' Disabling Act excluded Catholics from Parliament Rye House plot to assassinate the King James II Hande 1 N e w t o n ' s P r i n c i p i a ; I n t e r r e g n u m ; L o n d o n r i o t s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 5 1688-1689 Glorious Revolution 1689 War with France 1689-1702 William and Mary 1690 Aubrey's Brief Lives Historical Background Dr. Wallis conducted his grammatical and phonological investigations of the English language during one of the to produce so large an amount of scholarship amidst the Great Plague, the Great Fire, Civil Wars, the Restoration of Charles II, and the Revolution of 1688 is remarkable. Having secured financial independence through his fame as a j decipherer, he was able to remain aloof from the turmoil around him and to cultivate a wide range of interests, in cluding a close study of the vernacular. His interest in ;the English language and its grammatical regulation stemmed, I jat least partially, from his close ties with Puritanism. Ever since he had learned to read the Bible in Hebrew as a child, divinity had been his prime interest, and he had looked forward to taking Holy Orders . From childhood, he had been given a strict religious upbringing, sheltered from the violence and turmoil without. He had been exposed to imost turbulent periods in English history. That he managed ; i ! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 6 religious exercises and catechetical divinity; he attended sermons devoutly.'*' In writing the GLA Wallis 1 purpose was primarily a religious one; he wanted to facilitate, espe cially for foreigners, the learning of English so as to enable his readers to understand religious treatises and thereby be exposed to Puritan doctrine. j By the middle of the seventeenth century, the Puritans j had become the chief advocates of the use and development | | |of English. They felt that religious "knowledge could be j imparted much more rapidly, comprehensively, and efficientlyj through the mother tongue than through a strange medium." I They had a strong "desire to render the vernacular more I effective" as an instrument of learning "and to raise it to ! a higher plane of esteem and dignity," so that English could; i i perhaps even surpass Latin in scholarly use. They had a i I | "strong antipathy to linguistic study of the traditional i 2 kind," including the study of Latin for its own sake. i i ■^The seventeenth century has been called the golden age of the sermon. The development of English prose during Wallis 1 lifetime can be traced in sermon literature, char- j acterized by extended metaphor and elaborate parallelism. j Wallis, like Dryden and others, was influenced by the prose style of the divines . 2 Jones, p. 309; m 1662 An Act for the Uniformity of Publigue Prayers and Administracon of Sacraments and other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 7 Their primary plea was for an improvement of English in the school system* resulting in the widespread publication of pedagogical English grammars in England and America both. T h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y w a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e r i s e o f t h e p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s a n d t h e c o n t i n u i n g d e c l i n e o f m e d i e v a l c o n c e p t i o n s o f k n o w l e d g e b a s e d o n A r i s t o t e l i a n m e t h o d s . T h e r e w a s a g r a d u a l t r a n s i t i o n f r o m L a t i n t o E n g - i l i s h a s a n i n s t r u m e n t o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l e x p r e s s i o n . G r e a t i ! I i n e w a r e a s c o n c e r n i n g t h e k n o w l e d g e o f n a t u r e h a d b e e n o p e n e d u p b y G a l i l e o * C o p e r n i c u s * K e p l e r * a n d o t h e r s * a n d i t b e c a m e I (apparent that the key to understanding the new information could be found in the application of mathematics and precise i m e t h o d s o f m e a s u r e m e n t . T h e p e r i o d c a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y b e t e r m e d t h e " A g e o f R e a s o n " b e c a u s e m o s t o f t h e g r e a t t h i n k e r s w e r e a t t e m p t i n g t o i n t r o d u c e m a t h e m a t i c a l r i g o r i n t o a l l t h e b r a n c h e s o f k n o w l e d g e * i n c l u d i n g l a n g u a g e . ( I n t e r e s t i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f a u n i v e r s a l l a n g u a g e a n d u n i - i versal grammar stemmed from a rationalistic frame of mind. i i Rites and Ceremonies and for establishing the Form of making! ordaining and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons in 1 the Church of England was passed by Parliament; the act called for the following church activities to be conducted in English and to be based on the Book of Common Prayer (1549): administration of sacraments; preaching the gospel; singing of psalms; ordaining bishops* priests, and deacons; reciting morning and evening prayers . __________________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 8 Bacon was the first to hint at creating a universal tongue, but the idea did not gain ground until 162 9, when i i ! Descartes pointed out that a logically constructed language i w h i c h w a s t o h a v e u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n d e m a n d e d , f o r i t s f o u n d a t i o n , a n o r d e r a m o n g a l l t h e t h o u g h t s o f w h i c h m a n ' s jmind could conceive, and that that order was to be of the I s a m e t y p e a s h a d b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e n u m e r i c a l s e r i e s j i ; ! ( M c I n t o s h , p p . 80-81). T h e d e s i r e t o p r o v i d e g r a m m a t i c a l ! d a t a w i t h a p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a s i s m a y b e l i n k e d t o a n a n a l y s i s ! i o f t h e h u m a n m i n d a n d t h e v a r i o u s w a y s i n w h i c h i t e x p r e s s e s ! ; I i i jits ideas. This rationalistic approach toward linguistic i | j a n a l y s i s f i n d s e x p r e s s i o n i n E n g l a n d i n J o h n W i l k i n s ' E s s a y , i Towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language (1668)j a n d i n F r a n c e i n t h e P o r t - R o y a l G R G , w h i c h a p p l i e s C a r t e s i a n | 3 ! philosophical principles to language phenomena. ! I i ! . 4 ! While Descartes and the Port-Royal grammarians were 3 . . . C h o m s k y m C L a n d V o r l a t m h e r d i s s e r t a t i o n , P r o g r e s s in English Grammar 1585-1735, both argue that the GRG is j ibased on Cartesian philosophy. See Chapter V , where I dis- j cuss this more fully. j 4 ' i T h e P o r t - R o y a l g r a m m a r i a n s I s h a l l b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h j | a r e C l a u d e L a n c e l o t a n d A n t o i n e A r n a u l d . L a n c e l o t w a s t h e j l e a d i n g f i g u r e i n t h e n e w t h e o r y o f g r a m m a r ( s e e R o b i n i L a k o f f , r e v . o f G r a m m a i r e g e n e r a l e e t r a i s o n n e e , L a n g u a g e , ,45 [ J u n e 1969], 343-364), i . e . , t h e t h e o r y t h a t a l l l a n g u a g e s s h a r e c e r t a i n i d e n t i f i a b l e g r a m m a t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 9 p o n d e r i n g u n i v e r s a l g r a m m a r o n t h e C o n t i n e n t , E n g l a n d w a s m o v i n g t o w a r d t h e c e n t e r s t a g e o f i n t e l l e c t u a l E u r o p e a n d I a s s u m i n g a m o r e c o m m a n d i n g r o l e i n s c i e n c e , c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e e a r l i e r f a m e w o n i n l e t t e r s - W a l l i s , d i r e c t l y c a u g h t u p i n t h i s m o v e m e n t t o w a r d a n e w e x p e r i m e n t a l s c i e n c e , w o r k e d b e h i n d t h e s c e n e s t o o r g a n i z e t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y , w h i c h c o u n t e d a m o n g i t s m e m b e r s J o h n W i l k i n s , I s a a c N e w t o n , ! ! ; i i T h o m a s H o b b e s , J o h a n n K e p l e r , a n d R o b e r t B o y l e . J u s t a s i D e s c a r t e s h a d t o u c h e d u p o n t h e n o t i o n o f a l o g i c a l l y c o n - i ^ s t r u c t e d l a n g u a g e , s o t h e S o c i e t y f e l t t h a t , i n t h e c o n t e x t - o f t h e n e w e x p e r i m e n t a l s c i e n c e , t h e r e w a s a c o n c o m i t a n t ! n e e d f o r a p r e c i s e a n d a c c u r a t e l a n g u a g e , o n e w h i c h s c i e n t i s t s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s c o u l d e m p l o y t o p r o m o t e a p l a i n s t y l e 5 ' o f d i s c o u r s e , a s T h o m a s S p r a t i n d i c a t e s m t h e f o l l o w i n g i I | s t a t e m e n t : I j T h e y [ t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y ] h a v e [ m a d e ] . . . a c o n s t a n t j > R e s o l u t i o n t o r e j e c t a l l t h e a m p l i f i c a t i o n s , d i g r e s s i o n s , i a n d s w e l l i n g s o f s t y l e : t o r e t u r n b a c k t o t h e p r i m i t i v e p u r i t y , a n d s h o r t n e s s w h e n m e n d e l i v e r ' d s o m a n y t h i n g s , a l m o s t i n a n e q u a l n u m b e r o f w o r d s . T h e y h a v e e x a c t e d ! f r o m t h e i r m e m b e r s , a c l o s e , n a k e d , n a t u r a l w a y o f s p e a k i n g ; p o s i t i v e e x p r e s s i o n s j c l e a r s e n s e s ; a n a t i v e e a s i n e s s , b r i n g i n g a l l t h i n g s a s n e a r t h e M a t h e m a t i c a l a n d s t r u c t u r e s . T h e G R G c o n t a i n s m u c h o f w h a t S i r F r a n c i s ! B a c o n h a d s a i d e a r l i e r a b o u t p h i l o s o p h i c a l g r a m m a r i n h i s i D e A u g m e n t i s S c i e n t i a r u m (162 3) . | ^ S p r a t , a y o u n g c l e r i c a m b i t i o u s f o r l i t e r a r y d i s t i n c t i o n , w a s a p r o t e g e o f B i s h o p J o h n W i l k i n s . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 0 plainnessj as they can: and preferring the language of Artizans, Countrymen and Merchants, before that, of Wits and Scholars This need for a generally accepted and understood lan guage is felt widely for the first time in the latter half of the seventeenth century, when Latin was being used less as the international language of scholarship. The idea of 7 simplifying English is a natural outgrowth of a rationalist I period when it was believed possible for the human mind to ! I i make things perfectly logical and to create a logical prose J i style. The general trend in English prose at this time was i toward informality, simplicity, and realism. The poetic ; j style of the first half of the century was replaced by the ! more agile and informal style of the memoir, pamphlet, and newspaper. The Society's desire to bring all things closer to mathematical plainness parallels Descartes 1 observation j ^Quoted in Barbara Shapiro, John Wilkins 1614-1672; An| Intellectual Biography (Berkeley: University of California j Press, 1969), p. 2 06, from Thomas Sprat's History of the j Royal Society; Sprat's views on prose style did not really get into English literature until Wordsworth, more than a j century later; see, in particular, his Preface to Lyrical j Ballads (1800). j ! I 7 . The idea of an academy for English arose during Wallis' time; the Accademia della Crusca had been formed in Italy by A. F. Grazzini in 1582, and the Academie Fran£aise had been founded by Richelieu in 1635 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 1 (mentioned earlier) concerning an order in language similar to that established in the numerical series . That the Royal Society was very much interested in improving the English language for purposes of debate and scientific discussion is reflected in the minutes of 1664 and 1665: It being suggested that there were several persons of the Society, whose genius was very proper and in clined to improve the English tongue, and particularly for philosophic purposes; it was voted that there be a committee for improving the English Language; and that it meet at Sir Peter Wyche's lodgings at Grey's Inn, once or twice a month, and give an account of their proceedings to the Society when called upon. It was ordered that Dr. Wilkins meet the first time (at least) with the committee for improving the English tongue; and that particularly he intimate to them the way of proceeding in that committee, according to the sense of the Council viz. chiefly to improve the philos ophy of the language.® Wallis served on this committee along with such literary Q Quoted in McIntosh, pp. 17-18; the first statement is from the Minute of December 7, 1664; the second, from Janu ary 18, 1665. By improving the "philosophy of the language" is meant that English should be simplified so as to become well-suited to the communication of philosophical truth; the concept of "philosophical language" had been formulated by Descartes in 1629. Dr. Wilkins, whose Essay will be examined later, was a close friend of Wallis. In 1665 Sir Peter Wyche, a founder of the Royal Society, was nominated chairman of the committee to consider the improvement of the English tongue. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 2 figures as John Evelyn and John Dryden. However, the group never filed a report because when the plague broke out in 1665, they all fled the city. Thus, attempts were being made to refine English and to raise it to the same level of utility as Latin, which, for three-quarters of a century preceding the publication 9 o f t h e G L A , h a d d o m i n a t e d t h i n k i n g a b o u t E n g l i s h g r a m m a r . ; T h e s c i e n t i s t s a n d m a t h e m a t i c i a n s o f t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y j Ineeded a clear, precise language for the accurate expression | jof their ideas and theories, and they were going to make ' English meet these requirements. Being a mathematician, Wallis sought to impose absolute regularity and simplicity on English in his GLA. His search for regularity has the merit of stressing that English can be reduced to a set of irules, by which foreigners can master the language. j j t ! I n t r y i n g t o r e g u l a t e t h e v e r n a c u l a r , g r a m m a r i a n s j ^ b e f o r e W a l l i s ( a n d a f t e r h i m a s w e l l ) , e s p e c i a l l y B e n J o n - j j s o n , a c c e p t i n g a L a t i n m o d e l , i n t r o d u c e d i t s s y s t e m o f i I ^Emma Vorlat argues that the GLA (1653) was the first j grammar to free English from the Latin structural pattern; jhowever, Wallis was not willing to do away with reference to Latin completely; he supplies English translations of typical Latin constructions (future participles, impersonal verbs) and methodically points out how English expresses Latin cases, moods, and tenses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 c o n j u g a t i o n s , d e c l e n s i o n s , a n d t h e l i k e t o d e s c r i b e E n g l i s h . W a l l i s , i n c o n t r a s t , d i d n o t i m p o s e a p r e c o n c e i v e d c l a s s i c a l p a t t e r n o n t h e l a n g u a g e . H e f e l t t h a t E n g l i s h , o f i t s e l f , p o s s e s s e d s o m e o f t h e f e a t u r e s o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l t o n g u e — s i m p l e , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , e a s y t o l e a r n — a n d h e j s t a t e d h i s v i e w s i n a l e t t e r t o T h o m a s B e v e r l y , a f e l l o w i n t h e S o c i e t y : i ! T o t h o s e o f a n o t h e r L a n g u a g e , i t [ t h e m e t h o d o f t e a c h i n g t h e d e a f a n d d u m b t o s p e a k ] m u s t b e s o a l t e r e d a s s u c h l a n g u a g e r e q u i r e s . A n d p e r h a p s w i l l n o t b e s o | e a s i l y d o n e f o r a n o t h e r l a n g u a g e a s f o r t h e E n g l i s h . j T h e F l e x i o n o f N o u n s , t h e C o n j u g a t i o n o f V e r b s , t h e J ! D i f f e r e n c e o f G e n d e r s , t h e V a r i e t y o f S y n t a x , e t c . i d o t h i n o t h e r L a n g u a g e s g i v e a g r e a t d e a l o f t r o u b l e , ^ ! w h i c h t h e s i m p l i c i t y o f o u r L a n g u a g e d o t h f r e e u s f r o m . 1 I A s t h i s e x c e r p t i n d i c a t e s 5 W a l l i s t h o u g h t E n g l i s h e a s i e r j i t h a n c l a s s i c a l t o n g u e s t o t e a c h t o a d e a f - m u t e . j W h i l e t h e P o r t - R o y a l S c h o o l i n F r a n c e w a s w o r k i n g o n j i t s G R G , t h e e x e m p l a r o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n i n \ i g r a m m a r s , a t t e m p t s w e r e b e i n g m a d e i n E n g l a n d t o d e v e l o p a i i u n i v e r s a l o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l l a n g u a g e , o n e w h i c h w o u l d j ^ J o h n W a l l i s , L e t t e r t o M r . T h o m a s B e v e r l y , C o n c e r n i n g * h i s M e t h o d f o r I n s t r u c t i n g P e r s o n s D e a f a n d D u m b ( L o n d o n : J. Greenwood, 1706), p. 60; Wallis and Beverly were both fellows in the Royal Society in its infant days; they often corresponded about ways to teach the deaf and dumb to pro nounce English. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 4 facilitate an international exchange of ideas and informa tion. Bishop John Wilkins of Chester, charged by the Royal Society to investigate the problem of developing a universal tongue, eventually published his Essay Towards a Real Char acter and Philosophical Language (1668), a work influenced by Wallis especially in the symbols used to represent the letters of the universal tongue.^'*’ The first part of , Wilkins 1 Essay explains the origin of languages and alpha- ! I : bets; the second exhaustively classifies notions from all ! areas of thought; the third relates to grammar, syntax, j i I j sorthography, vowels, and consonants; the fourth presents I symbols for the proposed writing system and language. The j I Essay was the chief British contribution in linguistics to ; ! the rationalist "Age of Reason," when the human mind was j | considered capable of constructing a perfectly logical ! ! ! language. j i i I On the Continent the culmination of the linguistic j j | effort of the epoch was the publication of the Grammaire ; For evidence that Wallis influenced the development of Wilkins' Essay, see Chapters VI and VIII of this disser- j tation, along with the following: McIntosh, pp. 90-91, and Ivan Poldauf, On the History of Some Problems of English Grammar Before 1800 (Prague: Charles University, 1948), pp. 82-83 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 5 generale et raisonnee in 1660, eight years prior to Wilkins 1 Essay. The Gentlemen of Port-Royal, applying Cartesian j principles to grammatical theory, produced a philosophical treatise, presenting grammatical data and analyzing the various ways in which the human mind expresses ideas . Wallis 1 GLA, Wilkins' Essay, and the Port-Royal GRG j were produced during a period of rampant plagiarism, with ; charges and countercharges of pirating being exchanged con- ■ t j stantly. Borrowing from the works of others came to be j j commonplace, and authors were not ashamed in many instances j 12 | to declare their guilt. Wallis, caught up in a cross-firej 13 I of diatribes and in the "Papist-plot" atmosphere of the ; | | [period, and more often mixed up in mathematical I 12 . At times it was difficult to determine how many j sources were copied in a single work, as is the case with I 'the 1711 Gildon-Brightland Grammar. R. C. Alston states in the pre-notes to the 1967 Scolar Press reprint that the work relied to a considerable degree on both the GLA and GRG; such reliance on the work of others should not be looked upon as reprehensible plagiarism, but as part of an accepted; linguistic tradition. For some idea about how widespread j plagiarism was during this period, see: Bertil Sundby, "A I Case of Seventeenth-Century Plagiarism," English Studies, 33; (1952), 209-213, and Robert E. Zachrisson, "Notes on Some j Early English and French Grammars," Beiblatt zur Anglia, | 1914, pp. 245-253. j 1 ^ XJThe most famous "Papist Plot (see histogram for others) was Guy Fawkes’ "Gunpowder Plot." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 6 controversies than linguistic arguments, was constantly fearful that the Catholic French were going to steal the scientific discoveries of the Royal Society. For him, the external turmoil of war and pestilence was matched by an inner, Protestant reaction to "Papist science." Even as late as 1692, when consulted about adopting the Gregorian j i calendar, the Doctor advised against the plan, feeling that j it would imply subservience to Rome. These negative reac- j I • i jtions to things Catholic and things French, coupled with j the Papist plots, the 1689 War with France, and Wallis' ; i jhand in the construction of Wilkins 1 Essay, lead to specu- j lation as to what underlay Wallis' double barb against ! Port-Royal in 1699. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C H A P T E R I V BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN WALLIS John Wallis was born on November 23, 1616, at Ashford, j in East Kent, where his father was Rector. When his father j I jdied in 1622, the young boy was placed in a local school; j (however, three years later, a plague devastated the area I t ! i j j a n d W a l l i s w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o a p r i v a t e s c h o o l a t L e y G r e e n , i near Tenterden. Here he came under the influence of James | Movat, a Scotsman, to whom he later paid tribute: | i I His Scholar I continued for divers years; and was by him well grounded in the Technical part of Grammar; so as to understand the Rules, and the grounds and reasons of such Rules; with the use of them in such Authors as are usually read in Grammar Schools . For | it was always my affectation even from a child, in all f pieces of learning or knowledge, not merely to learn by rote, which is soon forgotten, but to know the - grounds or reasons of what I learn; to inform my Judge- ! ment as well as furnish my memory; and thereby make a | better Impression of both.^ j '*'"Dr. Wallis' Account of Some Passages of his Own Life," in Thomas Hearne, ed., Peter Lanqtofts's Chronicle 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 8 In 1630 Movat closed his school so he could act as iprivate tutor for two pupils who were going abroad. Wallis had shown so much intellectual promise that Movat wanted to take him overseas, too; but his widowed mother objected and instead enrolled him in Felstead School, Essex. Here, under the tutelage of Martin Holbech, Wallis acquired within two j i y e a r s a m a r k e d p r o f i c i e n c y i n L a t i n , G r e e k , H e b r e w , F r e n c h , j l o g i c , a n d t h e r u d i m e n t s o f g r a m m a r . R e a d i n g t h e B i b l e i n j H e b r e w a n d s t u d y i n g l o g i c s e e m t o h a v e b e e n h i s c h i e f | i diversions at school. j A l t h o u g h W a l l i s 1 f a m e r e s t s f o r t h e m o s t p a r t o n h i s j I I achievements in mathematics and science, his initiation into! ! I those branches of learning came late. Since mathematics was! j a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s h o p k e e p e r s d u r i n g t h e e a r l y p a r t o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , W a l l i s h a d n o d e s i r e t o p u r s u e t h e ! I i [discipline formally. It was while spending Christmas vaca tion of 1631 at home in Ashford that he came across his j ! i b r o t h e r ' s m a t h e m a t i c s t e x t s a n d i n a f o r t n i g h t t a u g h t h i m - j i s e l f w h a t h a d t a k e n h i s b r o t h e r m o n t h s o f w o r k . F r o m t h e n i i I _ _ _ _ _ | (Oxford: The Theatre, 1725), p. 144. In addition to Hearne, the material in the biography has been drawn from J. F. Scott, The Mathematical Works of John Wallis (London: Taylor and Francis, 1938); Dobson, English Pronunciation 1500-1700; and the Dictionary of National Biography. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 9 on, he studied mathematics as a pastime. In 1632 Wallis entered Emmanuel College and studied ethics, physics, metaphysics, medicine, and anatomy. He was 2 the first student of Francis Glisson to maintain publicly his belief in the circulation of the blood. He continued ! ! his linguistic and logical studies and, in order to take Orders, read theology. Under the direction of Anthony j i B u r g e s s , a F e l l o w a t E m m a n u e l , " a p i o u s , l e r n e d , a n d a b l e j S c h o l a r , a g o o d D i s p u t a n t , a g o o d T u t o r , a n e m i n e n t j Preacher, a sound and orthodox Divine," Wallis became a | | jcompetent dialectician: ! I | j I soon became master of a syllogism, as to it's true structure and the reason of it's consequences, however cryptically proposed, so as not easily to be j imposed upon by Fallacies or false Syllogisms, when I was to answer or defend: and to manage an Argument with good Advantage, when I was to Argue or to Oppose, and to Distinguish ambiguous Words or Sentences as j | there was occasion. (Hearne, pp. 148-149) j i ; Wallis was graduated B.A. in 1636 and four years later, M.A. Though an attempt was made to elect him to a fellowship, the statutes provided for only one fellow from each county; as j 2 F r a n c i s G l i s s o n (1597-1677) w a s a p h y s i c i a n w h o a t t e n d e d t h e f i r s t m e e t i n g s o f t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y a n d w a s o n e o f t h e o r i g i n a l f e l l o w s ; i n 1656 h e w a s e l e c t e d P r e s i d e n t o f t h e C o l l e g e o f P h y s i c i a n s i n L o n d o n . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 0 Kent was already represented, he moved to Queen's College, where he was eventually chosen fellow. Wallis, who had looked forward to taking Holy Orders in the Church of England since boyhood, was ordained in 1640, and a year later became private chaplain to Lady vere I in London. Here he was to gain fame in cryptography. One j I evening at supper an important letter was delivered and j 3 within two hours, Wallis had cracked the code and deciph- | ered the cryptic message. This feat brought him to the j I attention of the Parliamentary party, to which he was an i I ! adherent. | i I Wallis 1 fame as a decipherer brought him financial j security and a comfortable life at St. Gabriel's, Fenchurch 4 Street, before he reached the age of thirty. Even after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, he was still working as a I |cryptographer on behalf of William III. Leibniz, collecting and describing data from various tongues in order to study 3 . ! The letter dealt with the capture of Chicester on i December 27, 1642; Cromwell's forces under the leadership of Sir William Waller defeated the King's troops, after putting the city under siege for ten days. 4 St. Gabriel's was the church where Wallis was granted a living (a church benefice, including the revenue attached ot it) by Parliament in 1643. The structure was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666 and never rebuilt. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 1 language relationships and establish a linguistic geneal- 5 ogy, was especially interested in Wallis 1 skills in cryp tography, though the Doctor refused to reveal his trade secrets in code analysis. Residing in London, Wallis became associated with Robert Boyle and other scientific personages, whose weekly conferences later led to the incorporation of the Royal Society. In 1644 the Doctor had been appointed Secretary to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and in this I capacity was in contact with several scholars attracted to I ithe new experimental philosophy proclaimed by Francis Bacon. j jwallis1 whole life now revolved around the activities of the Society members. The Parliamentary Commissioners, encouraged by John I jWilkins, appointed Wallis to serve as Savilian Professor of ! IGeometry at Oxford in 1649, the beginning of his intense imathematical activity, which occupied him almost without 5 Leibniz was the first known scholar to propose the notion that all "Eurasian" languages were derived from a common, prehistorical ancestor. For an account of his work, see: John T. Waterman, Perspectives in Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 13- 15, and John T. Waterman, "The Languages of the World: A Classification by G. W. Leibniz," Studies in Germanic Lan guages and Literatures, 1963, pp. 2 7-34. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 2 i n t e r r u p t i o n f o r t h e r e s t o f h i s d a y s . I n 1655 h e p u b l i s h e d [ A r i t h m e t i c a I n f i n i t o r u m , c o n t a i n i n g t h e b a s i s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l c a l c u l u s . N e w t o n r e a d h i s w o r k w i t h d e l i g h t a n d d e r i v e d t h e b i n o m i a l t h e o r e m f r o m i t . ^ A m o n g o t h e r a c h i e v e m e n t s , W a l l i s w o r k e d o u t a n e w e v a l u a t i o n f o r t t , a r r i v i n g a t i t b y t h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n ( a w o r d h e c o i n e d h i m s e l f ) o f i I i t e m s i n i n f i n i t e s e r i e s , a n d h e i n v e n t e d t h e s i g n f o r i n - j f i n i t y ( “ ) . j I t w a s d u r i n g t h i s d e c a d e t h a t W a l l i s t u r n e d h i s j i i i jattentions from mathematics to English grammar. His Puri- j I . i j t a n a f f i l i a t i o n s a n d s y m p a t h i e s h a d l e d h i m t o p r o d u c e a j I t g r a m m a r s o a s t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e m o v e m e n t r a i s i n g t h e j v e r n a c u l a r t o a h i g h e r p l a c e o f e s t e e m a n d u t i l i t y a n d j r e n d e r i n g i t m o r e e f f e c t i v e a s a c o m m u n i c a t i v e d e v i c e . H e ! | a n d B i s h o p W i l k i n s s e r v e d a s m e m b e r s o f a c o m m i t t e e t o j ‘ i m p r o v e t h e E n g l i s h t o n g u e . I n 1652 W a l l i s p r e s e n t e d h i s | ; j iGrammatica to certain charter members of the Royal Society. ! j T h e t e x t w a s w r i t t e n i n L a t i n s o t h a t f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s c o u l d j i I j jteach themselves English and gain access to such religious ; treatises as the Book of Common Prayer (1549) and the I A u t h o r i z e d K i n g J a m e s V e r s i o n o f t h e B i b l e (1611) . W a l l i s 1 | i ^Dictionary of National Biography, XX, 599. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 3 De Loguela, which described in detail the various modes of production of articulate sounds and had led him to develop a method for imparting to deaf-mutes the art of speech, was appended to the GLA.. During most of his lifetime Wallis had been blessed j with "a hale and vigorous constitution of body, and a mind that was strong, serene, calm, and not soon ruffled and j 7 i discomposed." His memory and powers of concentration were j prodigious. He could sit at a desk in intense study for up | i to twelve hours without taking a break. He explored mathe- j I matics so feverishly that he lost countless hours of sleep j i performing feats of mental arithmetic. On one occasion, he j | i extracted the square root of a fifty-three-digit number and rattled off the answer to a stranger next morning. Not until he reached eighty-four did he complain of any slowdown in his mental or physical capacities. In one of his last |letters to Pepys he stated, "Till I was four score years of age, I could pretty well bear up under the weight of those years; but since that time it hath been too late to dis- j semble my being an old man. My sight, my hearing, my | i i ! i ^John Lewis, Life of Wallis, Add. MS. 32601. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 4 s t r e n g t h a r e n o t a s t h e y w e r e w o n t t o b e . " j W h i l e h e w a s u n a b l e e a r l i e r i n l i f e t o r i s e a b o v e t h e l e v e l o f p o l e m i c s a n d c o n t r o v e r s y , t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e , j w r i t t e n w h e n h e w a s o v e r e i g h t y a n d n o l o n g e r i n g o o d h e a l t h , i n d i c a t e s t h a t W a l l i s m e l l o w e d w i t h a d v a n c i n g a g e : j I t h a t h b e e n m y l o t t o l i v e i n a t i m e w h e r e i n t h e r e j h a v e b e e n m a n y a n d g r e a t a l t e r a t i o n s . I t h a t h b e e n m y ; e n d e a v o r a l l a l o n g t o a c t b y m o d e r a t e p r i n c i p l e s b e t w e e n | t h e e x t r e m i t i e s o n e i t h e r h a n d , i n a m o d e r a t e c o m p l i a n c e ; w i t h t h e P o w e r s i n b e i n g i n t h o s e p l a c e s w h e r e i t h a t h b e e n m y l o t t o l i v e , w i t h o u t t h e f i e r c e a n d v i o l e n t a n i m o s i t i e s u s u a l i n s u c h c a s e s a g a i n s t a l l t h a t d i d n o t j a c t j u s t a s I d i d , k n o w i n g t h a t t h e r e w e r e m a n y w o r t h y p e r s o n s e n g a g e d o n e i t h e r s i d e . A n d w i l l i n g ( w h a t e v e r i s i d e w a s u p p e r m o s t ) t o p r o m o t e ( a s I w a s a b l e ) a n y g o o d d e s i g n f o r t h e t r u e i n t e r e s t o f R e l i g i o n a n d l e a r n i n g f o r t h e p u b l i c k g o o d , a n d r e a d y s o t o d o g o o d o f f i c e s a s t h e r e w a s o p p o r t u n i t y . A n d i f t h i n g s c o u l d n o t b e i j u s t a s I c o u l d w i s h , t o m a k e t h e b e s t o f w h a t i s . ( H e a r n e , p . 169) I T h e l a s t t h r e e d e c a d e s o f h i s l i f e W a l l i s s p e n t e d i t i n g a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n t e x t s o n m a t h e m a t i c s . H i s m a t h e m a t i c a l ! l a n d s c i e n t i f i c w o r k s w e r e c o l l e c t e d a n d p u b l i s h e d i n 1699, \ i ! ! t jin a massive three-volume work entitled Opera Mathematica . | ! S W a l l i s d i e d a t O x f o r d o n O c t o b e r 28, 1703, a t t h e a g e o f \ e i g h t y - s e v e n , a n d w a s b u r i e d i n S t . M a r y ' s C h u r c h . T h r o u g h j o Quoted in Scott, pp. 174-175; the letter occurs in the 1911 Braybrooke edition of Pepys' Diary, IV, 365. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. t h e e f f o r t s o f S a m u e l P e p y s , a m a g n i f i c e n t p o r t r a i t o f W a l l i s a t a g e e i g h t y - s i x , w h i c h a t p r e s e n t h a n g s o n t h e s t a i r c a s e o f t h e B o d l e i a n , w a s e x e c u t e d b y S i r G o d f r e y K n e l l e r . t ; i ! t : i , j i t | i t j ! i i I | i j i ! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C H A P T E R V T H E Q U A R R E L S O F J O H N W A L L I S W I T H M A T H E M A T I C I A N S A N D G R A M M A R I A N S In 1647 Wallis turned away from some of his earlier ; investigations into astronomy, the flux and reflux of the sea, blood transfusion, the barometer, gravity, and the strange behavior of quicksilver, in order to devote full ! a t t e n t i o n t o m a t h e m a t i c s . H i s a p p o i n t m e n t t o O x f o r d i n 1649 m a r k e d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f h i s i n t e n s e q u a r r e l s w i t h v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s . H e c r o s s e d s w o r d s w i t h s o m e o f t h e g r e a t e s t m i n d s o f t h e c e n t u r y a n d a t l e a s t o n e d e b a t e , w i t h T h o m a s H o b b e s , l a s t e d t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s . | | W a l l i s c l a s h e d w i t h H o b b e s o v e r t h e l a t t e r 1 s c l a i m t o I l h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n a b s o l u t e q u a d r a t u r e o f t h e c i r c l e , i . e . , | j t h e s o - c a l l e d s q u a r i n g t h e c i r c l e a r g u m e n t . W a l l i s r e f u t e d ! t h e w h o l e i d e a a n d , b e i n g m u c h t h e b e t t e r i n g e o m e t r y , p a r a d e d a l l o f H o b b e s 1 e r r o r s i n a 1656 a t t a c k e n t i t l e d D u e j C o r r e c t i o n f o r M r . H o b b e s , o r S c h o o l D i s c i p l i n e f o r n o t j 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 7 Saying his Lessons Aright. Hobbes, in turn, hurled a series of political polemics and a stream of invective against Wallis . Fourteen years later Hobbes was still being blackened by Wallis 1 pen, when the Doctor wrote to Robert Boyle: "I did acquaint you a while since, That I had under taken another Task, (almost as hard as to make Mr. Hobbes understand Reason) to Teach a person Deaf and Dumb to Speak . and Understand a Language1 1 (Letter to Robert Boyle) . Wallis also argued with Pascal, who had temporarily left his studies in philosophy and religion to dabble in mathematics. Fascinated with the cycloid and discovering some new properties of the curve, Pascal invited the mathe maticians of Europe to solve certain problems relating to | his discoveries. Wallis entered the competition but failed to receive a prize, the two French contest commissioners declaring that his papers were full of errors . Wallis i iadmitted to a few minor slips, but argued that they did not i j affect his results . Later, when Pascal published his Histoire de la roulette, Wallis accused him of using the contest solutions for his own benefit. From that time on, Wallis had no use for French mathematicians and challenged them whenever an opportunity arose. He quarreled with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 8 Fermat and Frenicle over the theory of numbers . His in- 2 dictment of Du Laurens 1 Specima Mathematica was so violent and unrestrained, according to J. F. Scott, that it merely defeated its purpose. Scott indicates that the diatribe took the form of a double charge of incompetence and plagi arism] he comments on Wallis' handling of the French: For Wallis was of a highly contentious disposition. j His correspondence unhappily leaves no room whatever j for doubt on that point. No man ever scorned personal popularity more completely than he, and his ineradicable j hatred of compromise often made him appear to have very little desire to understand the point of view of those from whom he differed, and made him appear so relentless ! ! in passing judgment that sometimes he seemed to forget | that he too could err. (p. 88) As was pointed out in Chapter II, Wallis was especially worried about foreigners from France usurping and expanding upon the scientific discoveries of the English. In 1650 he j 3 wrote to John Collins, a fellow of the Royal Society: ! ^"Pierre Fermat (16017-1665) and Bernard Frenicle (1605-j [1675) were French mathematicians; the former was a great j Inumber theorist and an expert in optics; Fermat's principle |is a statement in optics having to do with the path followed jby a ray of light undergoing refraction. ! Franciscus Du Laurens was a French philosopher and mathematician, whose Specima Mathematica (Paris, 1667) was his only well-known work. John Collins (1625-1683), an English mathematician elected to the Royal Society in 1667, wrote a long letter Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 9 Having found the quadrature of the hyperbola a little lame (that is, not so full as I wished it were) I did that night consider how it might be improved and the next morning I wrote to Mr. Oldenberg because I was un willing to leave to foreigners the perfecting of that which was by ours carried so far Wallis' most famous altercation was with William Holder, a Royal Society phonetician whose Elements of 5 Speech (1669) contained an outline of his methods for teaching a youth born deaf and dumb to speak. Wallis, also I j famed for working with the deaf and dumb, had presented one of his pupils, Daniel Whaley, to the Society and to Charles i | II. Whaley did quite well, even pronouncing some Polish i i i ; ] words. Shortly after this performance, Wallis was asked to I i work with Alexander Popham, another youth deaf and dumb to Wallis in 1682, "giving his thoughts about some defects j in algebra"; the missive was designed as a preliminary to a j iformal treatise on algebra, which he never completed; he j 'helped publish Wallis' History of Algebra and he corres ponded with Newton and Leibniz . ^Stephen Rigaud, ed., Correspondence of Scientific Men j (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1841), II, 491; Henry j Oldenberg was one of the two original secretaries of the j Royal Society, the other being Bishop John Wilkins. ; C j William Holder (1616-1698) became interested in pho- j netics after attempting to teach a deaf and dumb child to ; speak; his Elements is both an attempt to describe scien- ! tifically the sounds of English and a manual for practical phonetics; along with the GLA and Wilkins' Essay, Holder's treatise is a milestone in the history of English phonetics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 0 since birth. Though Holder had been responsible for the early treatment of Popham, Wallis failed to give him credit j ! when the young boy was later presented, partially cured, to Jthe Royal Society. Holder, nurturing this offense for eight jyears, finally attacked Wallis for stealing all the glory, I and he spared no insults: . . . And when he [Wallis] got a hint, (for which he always lay in wait) of any considerable new Invention ! or Improvement, presently comes out an Epistle or small j Tractate of Doctor John Wallis upon that subject, to j entitle it to himself.” : I j i Wallis, responding almost immediately with a counter- ! 7 statement, claimed that Holder's patient, after a lapse of ! two years, had lost his earlier ability to speak. He con- j tended that it was he who had helped the patient regain control of the English sound system. Wallis contradicted everything Holder said, including some statements concerning I I the origins of the Royal Society. ^Scott, Mathematical Work, p. 86; the full title of Holder's 1678 statement is A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July, 1670, with some Reflexions on Dr. John Wallis, his Letter there Inserted. ^The full title of Wallis' 1678 treatise is A Defense of the Royal Society, and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July, 1670, In Answer to the Cavils of Doctor William Holder. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill Wallis' passion for controversy prevented his remain- ! ing aloof from the petty rancors which characterized seventeenth-century science. In a letter to Sir Samuel 8 Morland, a mathematician and fellow in the Society, he convicted Descartes of fifty plagiarisms, noting that this was not the first piece of French craft he had exposed. j | Indeed, he seemed to think it inherent in the nature of the - people of that nation, that they could not pass up any | opportunity for exercising their pirating talents. Wallis' j poor opinion of the French also shows through in another j missive to John Collins, discussing his own Arithmetica ! ! i Infinitorum: "but that book is a book which the French, though 'tis enough they make good use of it, do not desire the world should take notice of" (Rigaud, II, 496). j Wallis' mistrust of things French may have stemmed from a Protestant reaction to "Papist" science, a natural i iconcomitant of the "Gunpowder Plot" and other political ; i . : |controversies of the period. Because France, under Louxs i XIV, was at that time on intimate terms with the Vatican, , I Q Samuel Morland (1625-1695), a dxplomatxst, mathema- j tician, and inventor, was elected fellow to the Royal j Society in 1649; he invented the speaking-trumpet and ex perimented with water engines so as to demonstrate the practical utility of steam power. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 2 t h e D o c t o r r e g a r d e d t h e F r e n c h w i t h s u s p i c i o n . P a r t o f h i s ! a n t a g o n i s m c o u l d a l s o b e s a i d t o s t e m f r o m n a t i o n a l i s t i c p r i d e a s t h i s e x c e r p t f r o m t h e p r a e f a t i o t o t h e G L A a t t e s t s : Therefore, the Normans lost or forgot their own language before they could make any change in the Eng lish. But although for this reason Old English kept its ground, yet this disadvantage certainly followed: many French words, although for the most part of Latin origin, crept into English and many English words by degrees grew out of use. Thus, as to the derivation of some words, we may judge that the words which the French have that are of German origin, brought by the Franks, although they may now seem to be common to us and to the French, yet we should still consider them originally our own, rather than borrowed from them. The same holds true for old Gaulish words which they ! retain, now in common with the Welsh, and which we like-wise have kept from the old British tongue3 we should hold that we received them from the Welsh rather than from the French. From that time, a large variety of foreign words have been received into our language. This is not to say that English is of itself poor and barren, for it is sufficiently enriched with words and elegancies, and if I may so speak, it is copious to an excess. Nor is there any word which it cannot furnish us from its own storehouse, in order for us to express our most refined conceptions in a significant and full I manner. The poems of our countryman Spenser are a sufficient proof of this. His expressions are neat i and elegant, copious and full of variety, yet pure and | beautiful without the help of outlandish ornamentation. However, some mixture could hardly be avoided consider ing our commerce with foreigners and frequent marriages of our royalty with foreigners, to which we may add an excessive desire for novelty, which at least in this latter age, has infected many with an itch to bring in foreign words without a real necessity for it. Some people are of the opinion that nothing can be expressed well or elegantly without carrying with it an uncommon sound or a foreign air. (pp. 7-8) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 3 The next target for his anti-French barbs was Port- j I iRoyal. In blasting the French grammarians, Wallis extended his scornful verbal attacks against French scholars like Pascal to Lancelot and Arnauld. The diatribe against the French linguists appeared in 1699, when Wallis incorporated the fifth edition of his GLA into his Opera Mathematica, a massive summation of his scientific scholarship. The gram- j mar was tacked on to part of an appendix to miscellaneous | works . Near the end of the praefatio to this volume, the | following accusation is found: ! : Huic conjuncta est Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (tunc simul edita) peculiari Linguae nostrae Genio accomodata (quae, a Linguarum Graecae Latinaeque structura, est multum diversa:) Quam post imitatus j videtur Gallorum nescio quis, in sua (quam vocant) Grammaire Universelle. To this [Volume III] the Grammatica Linguae Angli- canae (then published at the same time) has been | appended and adapted to the peculiar spirit of our j language (which is quite different from the structure \ \ of the Greek and Latin languages:) It seems that | lately some Frenchman has imitated it in his Grammaire j ' Universelle (as they call i t ) i 9 1 John Wallis, Opera Mathematica (Oxford: Sheldon The- ! atre, 1699), III, preface; I assume, as R. C. Alston does in! his facsimile edition of the 1753 GRG, that Wallis was re ferring here to the Port-Royal GRG; Ian Michael, in English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), also believes that Wal lis 1 claims are against the GRG (p. 165). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 4 While in this statement Wallis seems to be unaware of the joint authorship of the GRG, in a further claim against Port-Royal in the praefatio to the 1699 GLA. proper, he accuses "some Frenchmen": j j I | (quam, post haec primum edita, imitati videntur Gallo- j rum aligui in sua Grammaire Universelle; quae Latine post edita, Grammatica Universalis dicitur; methodo j meae multum conformis:) i The full passage would read as follows in English: : i I have therefore thought it best to proceed in an - entirely new way, not so much the one ordinarily used I for Latin as one of peculiar suitability to English (which, after this was first published, some Frenchmen j seem to have imitated in their Grammaire Universelle, j afterward published in Latin as Grammatica Universalis, > very similar to my method:) for indeed, since almost the whole syntax of the noun is performed with the help of prepositions, and the conjugation of verbs by the ready aid of auxiliaries, that which is wont to cause much difficulty in other languages is accomplished j in English with very l i t t l e . ■ | j I Wallis, now in his eighty-third year and nearing the j lend of his life, had saved two final barbs for the French. j I I jThough he placed the grammarians of Port-Royal under the | i I j ; same rubric as the "pirating" mathematicians, a comparison i ^®The passage occurs on p. 12 of the praefatio to the 1653 GLA; in the 1699 edition, Wallis inserted the accusa tion between the words suadet and tota nempe; I am grateful to Professor H. G. Baker for first pointing this information out to me; the translation is his. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 5 of the GLA and GRG reveals that there is not sufficient basis for Wallis 1 claim, as I shall show in the following chapters . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI A COMPARISON OF THE GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLICANAE (1653) AND THE GRAMMAIRE ! I i GENERALE ET RAISONNEE (1660) | i j i The Grammaire qenerale et raisonnee, intended to be a | | universal philosophical work, while describing French in I particular, focuses on the common underlying structures j found in all languages. It begins its discussion of syntax j with the observation that there are three basic operations | of the mind. I a. Perception is no more than the simple apprehension or view which the understanding forms of the objects i acting upon it, whether purely intellectual, as when j i I think of existence, duration, cogitation, God: or | 1 corporeal and material, as a square, a circle, a dog, | a horse. ' 1 I j b. Judgment is, when we affirm, that the thing which j | we conceive or apprehend, is so, or not so: as for j instance, when I understand what the earth is, and what roundness is, I affirm that the earth is round. j c. Reasoning is, from two judgments to infer a third. j As when having affirmed, that virtue is commendable, j and that patience is a virtue, I draw an inference, i that patience is commendable. (pp. 22-2 3) 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 7 A f t e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e t h i r d o p e r a t i o n a s i r r e l e v a n t t o g r a m m a r j L a n c e l o t a n d A r n a u l d f o c u s o n t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h c o n c e p t s a r e c o m b i n e d i n j u d g m e n t s ; t h e i r g r a m m a r d e d u c e s w h a t t h e y t a k e t o b e t h e g e n e r a l f o r m o f a n y p o s s i b l e g r a m m a r . I T h e y e l a b o r a t e a u n i v e r s a l u n d e r l y i n g f r a m e w o r k f o r a l l | i I I i l a n g u a g e b a s e d o n a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l m a n n e r i n j w h i c h w e e x p r e s s o u r t h o u g h t s . I t h a s b e e n a r g u e d r e c e n t l y ; [ t h a t b y m a i n t a i n i n g s u c h a n o r i e n t a t i o n , t h e P o r t - R o y a l G R G , I ! [ f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , u s e d a C a r t e s i a n a p p r o a c h t o w a r d l a n - i 1 i • g u a g e . j I ! ■^Chomsky, CL, pp. 31-33. Emma Vorlat, whose 1964 the- ' sis, Progress in English Grammar, I shall examine in the ! following chapter, agrees with Chomsky's interpretation. j John W. M. Verhaar, S. J., in "Philosophy and Linguistic ! Theory," Language Sciences, 14 (February 1971), 1-11, sup- j iports Chomsky's contention that the GRG is Cartesian in ■ orientation. j Hans Aarsleff argues that the GRG is not Cartesian but: jLockean. See his "Leibniz on Locke on Language," American ' [ philosophical Quarterly, 1, No. 3 (1964), 1-24; "The History1 [of Linguistics and Professor Chomsky," pp. 570-585; "'Car- ; [tesian Linguistics': History or Fantasy?" Language Sci- | j ences , 17 (October 1971), 1-12. ; j Philosopher Jan Miel also calls into question Chom- j [sky's assumption that the GRG is Cartesian. Miel argues that Pascal was behind the scenes : "My point in all this isj not that Chomsky should not take inspiration from the Port- \ Royal Grammar and Logic— I admire them probably even more than he does: But they are so admirable, one might almost j say, just because they are not based on or committed to i fundamental Cartesian positions. It is, I think, no acci dent that Descartes did not himself elaborate a theory of language, nor is it mere coincidence that Pascal so j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 8 As one might expect after examining Wallis' motives^ he says nothing about basic operations of the mind. His views on the syntax of English are limited to his Chapter XI, where he discusses word order as an important signal in English, elaborating on the order of elements in questions, I commands, and negative sentences. In contrast, Port-Royal syntax (Chapter XXIV) refers to a set of general maxims dealing with agreement (concord) and government in all lan- | I guages. Nouns agree with adjectives in gender, number, and j 1 case; prepositions govern certain cases; there is never a j i genitive case in a sentence which is not governed by some j | other noun; verbs govern various cases— all notions that | t i Wallis ignored in his work because his empirical orientation led him to focus more on the differences in surface struc- j | jture between Latin and English. Any similarity at a deeper j |level was beyond his analysis. j i I ! The rationales and motivations behind the GRG and GLA i I — — — ------------- ■" 1 ------- i frequently discusses linguistic problems. And since Pascal was on the spot, actively contributing to the Port-Royal books, it is surely not unreasonable to suppose that his theory of language might be more relevant to their exposi- j tion than that of Descartes." Miel also claims that Lance- ! lot and Arnauld pirated Chapter VI of the GRG, "Of a New Method of Learning Easily to Read in all Sorts of Lan guages," from Pascal's works ("Pascal, Port-Royal, and Car tesian Linguistics," Journal of the History of Ideas, 30 [November 1969], 267). _______ ______________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 9 a r e d i s s i m i l a r . T h e P o r t - R o y a l t r e a t i s e , t h e o r e t i c a l a n d [ a b s t r a c t , c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g o p e n i n g r e m a r k s i n t h e p r a e f a t i o : A s I h a v e b e e n e n g a g e d f o r s o m e t i m e i n d r a w i n g u p g r a m m a r s o f d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s , r a t h e r i n d e e d b y c h a n c e , t h a n f r o m a n y c h o i c e o f m y o w n ; t h i s h a s o f t e n o c c a s i o n e d m y e n q u i r y i n t o t h e r e a s o n s o f s e v e r a l t h i n g s , w h i c h a r e e i t h e r c o m m o n t o a l l , o r p a r t i c u l a r t o s o m e l a n g u a g e s . . . T h o s e w h o h a v e a r e g a r d f o r w o r k s o f r e a s o n i n g , w i l l p e r h a p s m e e t w i t h s o m e t h i n g h e r e t h a t ; w i l l p l e a s e t h e m ; a n d p r o b a b l y t h e y w i l l n o t c o n t e m n i t h e s u b j e c t ; f o r i f s p e e c h i s o n e o f t h e g r e a t e s t a d v a n t a g e s b e l o n g i n g t o m a n , s u r e l y i t i s n o c o n t e m p t i b l e t h i n g t o p o s s e s s t h i s a d v a n t a g e i n i t s f u l l e x t e n t , w h i c h c o n s i s t s n o t o n l y i n h a v i n g t h e u s e o f i t , b u t m o r e o v e r i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t s n a t u r e , a n d i n d o i n g t h a t b y k n o w l e d g e w h i c h o t h e r s d o b y c u s t o m . ^ W a l l i s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , u n d e r t o o k t o w r i t e a n a p p l i e d a n d p r a c t i c a l b o o k o n E n g l i s h : . . . I s e e t h a t a k n o w l e d g e o f i t i s g r e a t l y d e s i r e d I b y m a n y f o r e i g n e r s , i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y k n o w t h e m a n y i m p o r t a n t b o o k s t h a t a r e w r i t t e n i n E n g l i s h . T h e r e a r e m a n y p e o p l e , e s p e c i a l l y f o r e i g n d i v i n e s , w h o a r e e a g e r t o r e a d o u r b o o k s o n P r a c t i c a l T h e o l o g y , i n w h i c h i t i s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t o u r o w n d i v i n e s ! h a v e , w i t h G o d ' s h e l p , m a d e n o t a b l e a d v a n c e s , p a r t l y ! b e c a u s e t h e r e h a s b e e n l e s s n e e d f o r p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n o f d i s p u t e d m a t t e r s h e r e t h a n w h e r e p a p a l t h e o l o g i a n s a r e i n t e r m i n g l e d w i t h r e f o r m e d , a n d p a r t l y d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t v e r y m a n y p i o u s E n g l i s h P e o p l e h a v e b e e n 2 I Antoine Arnault and Claude Lancelot, General and [ Rational Grammar (London: The Strand, 1753), preface; I use the Scolar Press facsimile (Menston, 1968); R. C. Alston indicates that the translator was probably Thomas Nugent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. taking up this activity with a sincere piety in their j hearts. According to the more recent customs of the people, they desire both to understand and to follow the more intimate practice of religion. Therefore, listeners are becoming more anxious to hear the type of orator who expounds the practice of theology more efficiently. They have also become more accustomed to reading their religious writings more diligently. But, in addition, not only religious writings, but also all kinds of general literature are available in the English language and are published in English to such an extent that one may state, without boasting, that there is hardly anything of importance in learning that has not been translated nowadays into English, at least in a • mediocre way. Even at present, day by day, many impor- ' tant pieces of writing are coming out.^ | j Wallis sees his GLA as a pedagogical work, not a gen- ! j jeral or philosophical treatise. He wants to enable foreign j jstudents to learn English and have access not only to | I ; religious writings, but also to various other types of Eng- j 4 ! lish literature. Not concerned with other tongues, he | • 3 1 I GLA, preface, pp. 23-24. (Page references to the GLA,; Sunless otherwise noted, are to my translation.) ; i | ^The Puritan religious influence behind Wallis' GLA has j ibeen discussed in Chapter II. Some of the literature the Doctor's grammar would give his students access to would be: i Thomas Dekker, The Gull's Hornbook (1609); Bacon's New At- i lantis (1627); Milton's Lycidas (1637) and Paradise Lost (1667); Shakespeare's First Folio (1623); George Snell, The Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge (1649); John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress (1678) . Wallis mentions Ben Jonson i (Volpone, 1606) and Edmund Spenser (Fairie Queen. 1580) in j his praefatio. Some important religious works in English would in clude: John Wilkins, Discourse Concerning the Beauty of Providence (1649); Walter Charleton, The Immortality of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 1 formulates a set of rules by which English can be described (to foreigners with simplicity: i Although many foreigners are eager to understand our J language, some of them complain of the very great diffi- j culty there is in learning it. And, what I wonder at more is that some of our own countrymen have the same j notion, imagining English to be strangely puzzling and j complex, and not easily reducible to Grammar rules. j Hence, when both teachers and learners of the language set about this work for the most part in a confused and j disorderly manner, it is no wonder that they should meet j with so much difficulty and uneasiness in it. To remedy j this inconvenience, I have undertaken to reduce our lan- j guage, which is basically very easy, to a few short rules by which the language may be made easier for for- j eigners to learn, and by which our countrymen may per- i ceive more clearly the rationality and genius of their I native tongue. (GLA, preface, p. 2 5 supra) i i After acknowledging some of his predecessors and crit- i i icizing them for bringing English too close to the Latin norm, Wallis expressed admiration for the simplicity of English. In his enthusiasm, he exaggerates somewhat the ^ Human Soul (1657)i and George Hakewill, An Apologie of the j ; Power and Providence of God in the Government of the World j (1627). | In 1616 Charles Richardson, a London preacher, stated j that if ministers "would but diligently studie English bookes of Divinitie that are now in print, they might do j much good in Gods Church." He mentioned works by Calvin, Dod, Gr'eenham, Perkins, and Willet. It is also worthy of note than on April 9, 1651, an act was passed by Parliament j calling for the translation into English "of all Writs, j Proces, and Returns thereof, and of all Patents, Commis- ! sions, and all Proceedings whatsoever in any Courts of Jus tice within this Commonwealth of England and which concerns the Law and Administration of Justice." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 2 simplicity of English morphology, ignoring nominal and iverbal inflections and the possessive and objective forms of pronouns: Therefore, it seemed to me that an entirely new method should be employed, neglecting the Latin approach and keeping close to what is particularly suited to the nature of our tongue; in the syntax of nouns, all things are established with the aid of prepositions; in the conjugation of verbs, all things are done with the aid of auxiliaries. Thus, that element which causes great trouble in other languages is achieved in English with the least difficulty. Indeed, even in Latin there are some words, both substantives and adjectives, which are aptotes, i.e., clearly indeclinable, such as nihil, instar, sat (used as a substantive) fruqi, neguam, praesto, etc. They are still supposed to have gender and case like other words, although they remain the same in all cases and genders . Yet if all the Latin substantives were aptotes and all adjectives indeclin able, we would without a doubt have heard nothing con cerning the Cases and Genders of nouns, and a great many of those rules which are now necessarily laid down in Latin syntax of nouns would then have been useless and would nowhere be seen. The same thing would also be true in the various formations of the Tenses and Moods of verbs, if all the tenses of each voice were to be expressed only by means of circumlocution, as it is done in some tenses of the passive. Since in our j language, therefore, things are quite different from | Latin, there is no reason for introducing the fictitious J and inept conglomeration of Cases . Genders, Moods, and Tenses beyond all necessity and the fundamental nature of the language itself. (GLA, preface, pp. 26-27 supra) Whereas Port-Royal maintains classical case distinc tions in discussing universal features found in Latin, Greek, French, and Hebrew, Wallis casts off the inappropri ate framework and attempts to describe English in terms of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 3 its own characteristics. Writing in Latin, he keeps clas- jsical grammatical distinctions and retains the terminology i of Latin speakers ("even though all of them may not be suited to our language in every respect" [p. 27 supra]) because they are familiar to foreign students, who would ! have a command of the "lingua franca" of that period, and to avoid unnecessary innovations in the presentation of his j material.^ ! | : The first section of the GRG, like the GLA, deals with | I letters or characters used in writing. Whereas Wallis ; I | I jlimits his coverage to English, Port-Royal covers not only j French, but also Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Wallis was ! probably not referring to the first section of the GRG in his accusation. His chapters deal with consonants, vowels, diphthongs, and digraphs; Port-Royal discusses syllables, j | laccents, and letters, concluding with a chapter on how to j ! I ilearn to read easily in all languages . Wallis has nothing | ! | jto say about the techniques of learning to read, and, far ; from devoting a full chapter to the theory of the syllable, ! 5 • I | As will be pointed out m Chapter VI, Wallis may not j have fully cast off the notion of case. j ^Jan Miel maintains that this chapter of the GRG was stolen from Pascal; see note 1, this chapter. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 4 he assumes that his audience knows what the term refers to. Since I am not addressing myself to the possibility that Wallis is referring to Port-Royal phonology, and my focus is only on the accidence and syntax of the two works, I shall concentrate on section two of the GRG, which "treats of the principles and reasons, on which the various forms of the signification of words are founded" (GRG, p. 21). j The Port-Royal approach commences with an explanation of | the three basic operations of the mind. A knowledge of what! I f passes in the mind is necessary in order to comprehend the j I ; {foundation of grammar, and on this depends the diversity of ! I j (words which make up discourse. In this philosophical frame-| I j work the Port-Royal grammarians, drawing most of their | I | examples from French and maintaining the traditional clas- j f I jsical notions of gender, number, and case, discuss: nouns, ; ! j 'articles, pronouns, participles, prepositions, adverbs, j Iverbs, conjunctions, and interjections. Their closing chap-! i i ; j |ter treats of syntax, or what they call "the construction j : | of words together in a sentence," and includes a discussion j of how to embellish a language with figurative devices j ("figures of construction"). j i On the other hand, there is virtually no evidence in Wallis ' text that he was concerned with mental operations Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 5 and universal linguistic notions. He says nothing about the relationship between the knowledge of what passes in our minds and the foundation of grammar. Only once does he touch on common grammatical features of languages: H o w e v e r , w h i l e I a m e x p o u n d i n g t h e s e t h i n g s , d o n o t e x p e c t t h a t I s h o u l d e x p l a i n e a c h i n d e t a i l , i . e . , t h o s e g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m s i n E n g l i s h w h i c h a r e c o m m o n a m o n g t h e g r a m m a r s o f o t h e r l a n g u a g e s , a s t o w h a t i s a N o u n , P r o n o u n , V e r b , P a r t i c i p l e , e t c . , o r w h a t i s a S u b s t a n t i v e , A d j e c t i v e , S i m p l e , C o m p o u n d , P r i m i t i v e , D e r i v a t i v e , j A c t i v e , P a s s i v e , T r a n s i t i v e , I n t r a n s i t i v e , e t c .; o r w h a t i i s G e n d e r , C a s e , N u m b e r , P e r s o n , M o o d , T e n s e , a n d o t h e r s j s i m i l a r . F o r t h i s m a y b e c l e a r l y a s u p e r f l u o u s t a s k , j s i n c e n o o n e w h o h a s a n y k n o w l e d g e o f L a t i n c o u l d f a i l i t o k n o w t h e m . ^ | I j Clearly not referring to universal features of internalized j grammars, Wallis is merely defending the use of a common | terminology in describing various languages. Since his readers know Latin, he assumes they can transfer classical grammatical concepts to English grammar. \ Although Wallis occasionally comments on German and I I [Dutch, the GLA deals for the most part with English, except where Latin examples are presented to illustrate a similar 7 GLA, p. 32 supra; Wallis seems at times to be of the opinion that since these terms and notions already exist for Latin grammar, they can be applied to a description of English; later in Chapter VI, I shall elaborate on this idea. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 6 grammatical feature in the target language. Again, this limited focus differs significantly from the French GRG, which applies Cartesian rationalism to an analysis of lin guistic phenomena from Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, Ger man, English, and French, to cite a few. There are still other dissimilarities between Wallis and Port-Royal. Whereas the GRG regards the genitive as a case termination in the noun, Wallis rejects this notion of case and considers the genitive not as the form of a noun, but as a possessive adjective: Nevertheless, there are two kinds of substantive- derived adjectives, which are always placed before their substantives, and between them, they generally take the place of all sorts of prepositions. It is agreeable to call this first kind of adjective a possessive. Thus it is made from any substantive (either singular or plural) by adding -s_, (or -es, if the pronunciation requires). However, it has the same force as the preposition of, and corresponds to the Latin genitive of possession, or even agent. Thus, mans nature, the nature of man; mens nature, the nature of men; Virpils poems, the poems of Virgil. (GRG, pp. 39-41; GLA, pp. 42-43 supra) Chapter V of the GRG, "Of Genders," discusses grammat ical gender in French, Latin, and Greek. Wallis, in con trast, objects to the use of this category in describing English: The substantive nouns are assigned among us, neither a distinction of Gender nor Case; whereas in other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 7 tonguesj especially Latin and Greek, this distinction J is found, frequently with irksomeness, it is utterly eliminated in English. However, we still recognize a distinction of Number in substantives and also in verbs. If at any time we wish to express a distinction of j sex, it is not denoted by various genders of nouns, e.g., masculine, feminine, and neuter, which do not j distinguish the sexes even in Latin (for scortum, man- cipium, and amasium, etc., are of neuter gender, yet they refer to masculine or feminine sex; and on the contrary, gladius, vagina, arcus, saqitta, and others innumerable, are of neuter sex, although they are either masculine or feminine in gender). But we as well dis tinguish sex clearly in the same manner as age (or other external qualities), by distinctive names or attached adjectives . . . (GLA, p. 32 supra) Pronouns, too, are analyzed differently in the GLA and ! i j GRG. Wallis refuses to use the term "case" with the English pronouns, preferring to set them up in a chart illustrating 8 I two states, rect and oblique. In contrast, the Frenchmen present a pronoun schema based on Latin case distinctions, i.e., Nominative, Dative, Accusative, Ablative, Genitive ! i I(GRG, p. 56). | Wallis avoids a lengthy discussion of mood, merely noting what the modal auxiliaries can, may, etc., signify. The Port-Royal work devotes a full chapter to mood, comment ing on Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, and "oriental" g GLA, p. 49 supra; this may seem to be a moot point to those who see little difference in the terms state and case. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 8 languages (GRG, pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 9 ; GLA, pp. 5 4 - 5 6 supra). The GRG (presents three simple and four compound tenses. Wallis, like his predecessor Ben Jonson, reduces the English tense system to two: The inflection conjugation of verbs, which in other j tongues is carried out with maximum difficulty, is j accomplished in English in a very easy manner. We have | only two tenses in the verb, present and preterite im- ! perfect, along with two participles, active and passive, | these participles being clearly adjectives, and having j ! the nature of other adjectives . With the aid of a few auxiliary verbs, nearly everything else is accomplished. (GLA, p. 5 2 supra) j I Lastly, although a minor contrast, the order of pres- i entation of the parts of speech in Wallis and Port-Royal is j I | |quite different. The GRG follows earlier Latin manuals and | ! ! discusses the preposition late in the text, in Chapter XI. j Wallis covers the preposition in section IV, immediately following his chapters on the nominal substantive and the j I j articles. He is not concerned with what case a preposition 1 i , i I jgoverns, but the relation of the object of a preposition to I !the other elements in the sentence; he notes that what j English accomplishes with prepositions alone, Latin does I with both prepositions and case endings: , I As was said before, the English language does not | recognize in any way a diversity of cases (as especially the Greeks and Latins have); but it expresses with the _ aid of prepositions everything that Greek and Latin _____ : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 9 carry out partly by prepositions and partly by a diver sity of cases . Therefore, I am discussing the use of prepositions, while concerned with noun substantives (for only among substantives are they placed in front, for they are of a common attribute, so to speak); besides, it is accept able to add another approach. If the meaning of these few little words is understood, almost all the syntax of nouns is made plain at the same time. For a preposition, being prefixed to the substantive | governed by it, shows what relation this substantive j has to the word (it may be either a verb or a noun, or i other parts of speech) by which it is governed. For prepositions are subservient mostly to particular con textual requirements, i.e., the dictums of logic (as they say). Glaring differences between Port-Royal and Wallis are revealed when one examines how the Doctor's Latin-free doc trine affects his handling of the nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions. Without the Latin five-case framework, Wallis 1 treatise differs vastly from the French Jwork. The noun has no declensions and no gender; pronouns i joccur only in rect and oblique state; the verb does not icontain the classical notions of personal vs . impersonal, i !mood, and the seven-tense conjugation which characterizes i Jport-Royal; the adjective may be a substantive used 9 GLA, p. 36 supra; in his last sentence, Wallis is referring to a seventeenth-century belief in a universal or absolute logic, best exemplified in Antoine Arnauld's La Logique, ou l1art de penser (1662), trans. J. Dickoff and P. James as The Art of Thinking (Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1964) . ______ _____ ______________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 0 attributively, as in sea-fish; the preposition does not govern a substantive, for it is the relation of the object of a preposition to the rest of the words in an English l i sentence that is important. j The Doctor's goal is not to create a rational- i j philosophical grammar but an empirical-scientific one. In j i his approach to the structure of English, he is not a phi- | losopher but a scientist, analyzing data gleaned from lis- j tening to the errors of foreigners, juxtaposing the syn- i I | thetic features of Latin and the analytic character of J I English. Although Wallis believed English to be highly grammatical already, his GLA forms part of the seventeenth- j century effort to render the language more ruled and gramma- tized through the creation of grammars and dictionaries. Wallis, eager to have foreigners learn English with the least effort, even oversimplified his rules. The most j I I | 'famous hypothesis he conjured up, and the one he receives i | | ■most notice for today, is his so-called "shall-will rule," I ! iwhich although "elaborated by Lowth and Murray, and copied ! i ' j [ | by almost every textbook writer since, has at no time rep- j resented universal cultivated usage"^ ! i i i in . i Sterling A. Leonard, The Doctrine of Correctness m i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 1 Shall and will indicate future. It shall burn; it will burn. However, since it is hard for foreigners to under stand when to use one and when the other (for we do not use shall and will indiscriminately) and since no one else, it seemsj has laid down any rules by which they may be guided, I have thought it necessary to present these things in this way; any person who shall have observed them, will not make an error. In the first person, shall simply shows prediction; will, as it were, promise or threat. In the second and third person, shall expresses promise or threat, will, simply prediction. Thus, I shall burn, you will (thou wilt) he will, we shall, ye will, they will burn, that is, I am pre- j dieting this will happen; I will, you shall (thou shalt) j he shall, wee will, yee shall, they shall burn, that is, I I promise that this will come to pass, or I will see to j it that it does . j Should and would indicate what was about to be or what would be about to be, with this distinction: would j signifies the desire or the inclination of the agent; I should, simply the future. ^ Thus, I should or would burn. j j ! Utility was a dominant value in seventeenth-century English Usage 1700-1800 (New York: Russell and Russell, ; 1962), p. 73, first published as No. 25 in the University j ■of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature (1929) . j j ^ GLA, pp. 55-56 supra; Baker indicates (p. 165) that i [although Wallis was the first grammarian to formulate defi- j nite rules for the use of shall and will, George Mason had j earlier implied the distinction Wallis makes between them j in the first person ("You can say elegantly enough If I doe | eate that, I shall be sick, but if you should say instead, j I will be sicke, it would seem that you desired to be j sick"). This comes from Mason's Grammaire Angloise (1622). j Charles C. Fries also states that the germs for the definite; shall-will rules first formulated by Wallis are found in j Mason; see "The Periphrastic Use of Shall and Will," Lan guage Learning, 7 (1956), 46-47. I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 2 England, and Wallis, writing from a utilitarian motive, wants his readers to have access to religious writings and pieces of literature. The Puritans, by the middle of the seventeenth century the strongest advocates for the ver- 12 nacular, had been behind the "scripture" arguments which | j t led to the publication of the Authorized King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer . In their eyes, a knowledge of Latin yielded no profitable returns, but a command of English was useful in preparing one for all walks of life, i They were most insistent upon the use of English with re spect to the practice of law, and they took a vigorous stand i I on the teaching and employment of English in the school 13 system. Wallis 1 audience knows Latin so he writes in that tongue and maintains the familiar grammatical terminology. i 12 | These arguments go back to the reign of Henry VIII; lone of the most revolutionary issues during Henry's rule was translating the Bible into English; the major argument j against it was that if the book were accessible in the only j language known to the unlettered among the laity, it might encourage novel and dangerous interpretations of scripture; although many of Henry's advisors regarded the procedure with apprehension, Archbishop Cranmer gave his sanction to the project in 1544; this act paved the way to the English Reformation and the rise of Puritanism. 1 *3 For a discussion of the type of education the peda gogical Puritans sought, see Jones, pp. 303-32 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 3 Outside of his one reference to universal grammatical con cepts based on a Latin framework (p. 32 supra), he does not theorize about or allude to philosophical grammar. His GLA is a pedagogical treatise; he has no interest in discussing elegance and figures of speech as the French do in the GRG. His concluding chapter, a short haIf-page statement on poetryj merely notes that there are various kinds of meter j i and that poets vary conventional word order in their writ- j 14 . • ings; apparently Wallis was too concerned with describing j English structures in as simple a way as possible to dwell j ! I jon poetic license or to provide examples of poetry. ! 14 Wallis added more material m the fourth edition of the GLA (1674), expanding on etymology and poetry. Accord ing to Falconer Madan, the 1674 edition gives an account of the additions at the end of the praefatio: "In the account by Wallis (at the end of the preface) of the successive leditions, this fourth is stated to be much augmented, espe- 'cially in the 14th and 15th chapters (De Etymologia and De jPoesi) but the latter is still quite inadequate. The Praxis iis an attempt to teach a syntax by three exercises, a verba tim explanation of the words of the Lord's Prayer and lApostles1 Creed, and a third singular and elaborate expla- | nation of 'When a Twister-a-twisting, will twist him a twist,' etc. The four original French lines ('Quand un | cordier, cordant, veult corder une corde1, etc.) were put j before Wallis in 1653 to show the exquisite correlation of j corde, accorder, descorder, etc. Wallis caps this by j translating them into equally neat English, and adds eight j more lines: and finally contrasts the English and French with the clumsiness of Latin ..." (Oxford Books: A Bib liography [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931], III, 301). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 4 Seventeenth-century England (except for writers like Milton and Dryden) turned away from a concern with the elo quence of English to its development into an efficient medium of communication. Authors sought to develop a more precise English while retaining some of its elegance. The Elizabethans had demonstrated the potentialities of English as a vehicle for great literature; writers like Wallis in- jsisted on English for non-artistic utilitarian purposes. The Doctor's GLA is for foreign students, a modest con trastive analysis of Latin and English, different both in I ' jspirit and letter from the GRG. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VII I AN EVALUATION OF JOHN WALLIS ' CHARGE AGAINST PORT-ROYAL ! In light of the evidence drawn from a comparison of the I GLA and the GRG in the previous chapter, the differences jcited being only a few, the two works appear to be dis tinctly dissimilar. What, then, might Wallis be specifi cally referring to in his accusation? He claims that Port- j Royal uses a "method" very similar to his but he does not ielaborate. In order to evaluate Wallis' double indictment j ! against the French, I should like to place him in a broader | ; I | framework than is revealed by merely examining the prae- l fatio, accidence, and syntax of his Grammatica. I wish to j raise some legitimate speculation and to consider several possible explanations for the Doctor's charge. I As Wallis had quarreled with Pascal in connection with i f i | \ ; i j j i i i I 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 6 certain mathematical discoveries,^- there is the possibility j I ; i Ithat he is referring not to the GRG but to another Grammaire; j | ! Universelle, composed by the French scholar during his long j ! ! [sojourn at Port-Royal, where he actively contributed to many ! I (publications. However, I am unable to discover a work by j i ! that name written by the famous French mathematician and [ philosopher.^ As Wallis recognized that his De Loquela was an origi- | inal work, he could be objecting to the Port-Royal treatment I I ; !of phonology. My concerns here being solely with morphology i i i . . . 3 j land syntax, I leave this possibility open. I i i I i A more plausible reason for Wallis 1 barbs would be the ; Iclose similarity between the GLA and the GRG in their hand- j ! 4 ! |ling of the functions of prepositions. The Doctor examines; ■^See Chapter V, p. 107. i ^Sources consulted include: Catalogue general des livres imprimes de la Bibliothegue Nationale (Paris: La Bibliotheque Nationale de France, 1935), CXXX, 852-932; i Nouveau biographie generale (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1862), XXXIX-XL, 270-286; Albert Maire, Bibliographie generate des . oeuvres de Blaise Pascal, 5 vols. (Paris : Giraud-Badin, [1925-1927). I ^The Baker translation of the augmented 1699 fifth edition of the Grammatica (in preparation) may shed light on! this area. ! i I 4 1 I Ian Michael (p. 455) says that Wallis "reintroduced Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 7 how prepositions indicate relationships in a sentence: For a preposition, being prefixed to the substantive j governed by it, shows what relation this substantive has to the word (it may be either a verb or a noun, or other parts of speech) by which it is governed. For prepositions are subservient mostly to particular con textual requirements, i.e., the dictums of logic (as they say). (GLA, p. 36 supra) j I Similarly, the French chapter on the preposition deals with | an analysis of the different relations expressed by various ' prepositions in French. i \ i We have already observed that cases and prepositions | I were invented for the same use, that is, to express the ! relations which things have to one another. j i The relations signified by prepositions are very near I the same in all languages. I shall content myself | ! therefore with giving here the chief of those, that are j marked by the prepositions of the French tongue . . . 1 I (GRG, p. 82) j i | (The Doctor's handling of the preposition in terms of logicalj I : | relationships anticipates Bishop Wilkins 1 later treatment ini : | his Essay, which we know was heavily influenced by the GRG: I : i |"The proper office of the preposition is to joyn Integral I linto the description of the preposition a reference to its iexpression of relation"; Michael also points out how Wallis'I ^treatment closely parallels those of Wilkins and Port-Royal;j Baker (pp. 81-84, 276-277) also calls attention to the Doc- j tor's handling of the prepositions in terms of logical re lationships . j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 8 5 with Integral on the same side of the Copula." It could i ibe that Wallis 1 chapter on the preposition was borrowed by i Port-Royal and then passed on to Wilkins. The Doctor's use |of the term method, however, weakens the argument that he | I I I I jwas objecting to the French imitating his description of j i ! i t ! the preposition, if indeed they did. | i Another possibility, consonant with the Doctor’s use ofj the term method, would be that Wallis assumed Lancelot and 1 jArnauld built their rational-philosophical treatise around i i jhis nine-parts-of-speech system, expanding it so as to in clude notions from other tongues. Although not presented | i | I i [in the same order, all nine items in Wallis 1 system do occur! ! ! in the GRG. A more interesting speculation, especially in light of j | 6 . ! icurrent interest in the notion of case, is that since the 5 John Wilkins, Essay towards a Real Character and a I Philosophical Language (London: John Martin, 1668), p. 309;' iVorlat (I, 55-59) indicates that Wilkins borrowed heavily j [from Port-Royal. | i ■ ^The grammatical notion of case is receiving much ! jattention in current investigations into universals of lin guistic theory. Charles Fillmore maintains that the notion jof case deserves a place in the base component of every I language* see, in particular, "A Proposal Concerning English! [Prepositions," Georgetown Roundtable Monograph, 19 (1966), j |l9-33; "The Case for Case," in Universals in Linguistic j jTheory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms (New York: Holt, i i j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 9 Port-Royal grammarians felt that "it seems almost necessary for the knowledge of any language whatsoever, to know what is meant by these [classical] cases" (GRG, p. 37), and since Wallis at times seems to be expounding on the notion that case underlies even analytic languages like English, he | I j could be commenting on the fact that the French orientation j j to case was similar to his own. He hints at this idea in j i Chapter IV of the GLA, where he closely parallels Latin casej I | i i notions to English prepositional constructions: i The preposition of signifies the same thing as the j j genitive case of Latin, and it allows the same variety j of signification placed after substantives, adjectives j or verbs . . . (p. 37 supra) With indicates the instrumental, like the Latin Ablative ■ of instrumentj and sometimes accompaniment, as Latin j cum . . . (p. 39 supra) Rinehart and Winston, 1968), pp. 1-88; "Toward a Modern j Theory of Case," in Modern Studies in English, ed. Sanford jSchane and David Reibel (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-j [Hall, 1969), pp. 361-375; "Some Problems for Case Grammar," : I working Papers in Linguistics, No. 10 (Ohio State Univer- ! sity, August 1971), pp. 245-265. After stating in earlier papers that a new order of concepts should be incorporated 1 iinto the theory of TG, i.e., deep structure cases, Fillmore j lhas elaborated upon the idea that case categories should be ; jposited for all languages, including those which lack mor- | iphological case inflections altogether. In this manner, thej same sorts of underlying semantic functions could be seen as realized in the form of case endings in one language (e.g., Latin) and prepositional constructions in another (e.g., English). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 0 jlle also seems to be of the opinion that English prepositions j are subservient to the dictums of a universal logic (GLA, p. 36 supra) and that Latin reflects this logic better than other tongues. If these are Wallis' leanings, then he can be tied to the current distinction of deep vs. surface j structure P The most plausible motive behind Wallis' claims, it j !seems to me, is that he felt he was concerned with under- ! | I jlying notions across languages before the Port-Royal GRG ! i I j | jappeared. His relations with Bishop Wilkins and his active participation in the linguistic research of the Oxford j i grammarians point to a strong interest in linguistic uni- ; versaIs. The following excerpts from A Letter to Robert Boyle indicate that Wallis was interested both in the common| Chomsky indicates in CL (p. 45) that grammarians who j use classical names (nominative, accusative, genitive, etc.)j |to describe an analytic language like English may have been I of the belief that there are fundamental underlying rela- ; tionships basic to all tongues: "It is important to realize! that the use of the names of classical case for languages j with no inflections implies only a belief in the uniformity { of the grammatical relations involved, a belief that deep structures are fundamentally the same across languages, al- j though the means for their expression may be quite diverse, j jThis claim is not obviously true— it is, in other words, a j hon-trivial hypothesis. So far as I know, however, modern Jlinguistics offers no data that challenges it in any serious jway. " Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 1 notions of language and in the idea of a universal tongue: I | j For it is very certain, that no Two Languages can j I be so much different the one from the other, but that | the Knowledge of the one will be subservient to the | Gaining of the other; not only because there is now a j j Common Language, wherein the Teacher may Interpret to j ; the Learner the signification of those Words and Notions | j which he knows not, and expresse his own thoughts to J | him; but likewise (which is very considerable) because ! { the Common Notions of Language, wherein all or most j ! Languages do agree, and also so many of the Particu- I larities thereof as are common to the Language he knows ! already, and that which he is to learn, (which will be j I very many) are already known, and therefore a very con- j siderable part already dispatched of that work, which 1 j will be necessary for the Teaching of a First Language j to him who as yet knows none. i And though I will not dispute the Practical Possi- j ! bility of introducing an Universal Character, in which | all nations though of different speech, shall express j j their common Conceptions. (pp. 27, 32)® 1 Q ! | “Several scholars have indicated that Wallis was con- j icerned with common features of languages and with the idea j iof a universal tongue; in her biography of John Wilkins j (Shapiro notes Wallis ' participation in linguistic meetings j |at Oxford: "The next English development in creating a j universal language came from the Oxford scientific circle. As early as 1650, Seth Ward and William Petty were working j on a philosophical language, perhaps based on Cyprian Kin- | ; ner's communication to Hartlib. The university had by the ; 11650's become not only a scientific but a linguistic center.| ;John Wallis frequently discussed linguistic questions with j Archbishop James Ussher and Gerald Langbaine at Oxford, as j iwell as his more scientific colleagues" (p. 2 08). McIntosh ! implies that Wallis influenced Wilkins 1 Essay: "In a letter! jpresumed to have been written in March 1661/2 Wallis inti- j |mated to Robert Boyle that he could see no reason 'why let- ! ters and characters might not as properly be applyed to represent immediately, as by the intervention of sounds, what our conceptions are . 1 At the time of writing this jletter Wallis was engaged in teaching a deaf-mute to speak Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 2 There is also evidence that the two grammarians were them- I selves corresponding in the "real character and philosophi- and understand the English language. He reasoned that as j his pupil or any person so afflicted should be taught to 1 |understand a concept represented on paper by letters without Iresolving these letters into sounds, so might any man be • jable to comprehend the significance of a symbol without that; I symbol having any connexion with the sound of the name of j the thing characterized. The practice of the Chinese who . represented things and notions independent of the sounds of ; jwords, and whose diverse dialects were integrated by the ! (application of a common character, might easily be imitated,, jWallis argued, by those who wished to find an international ! [medium of communication. It was perfectly possible that j jsome universal character might be agreed upon in which all |men, although differing in their native tongue, could ex- 1 (press their common conceptions . . . Wallis's attitude to- iward a universal-character— that it was possible and that it [was desirable, although it might be of some difficulty to j begin with— was probably shared by other members of the [Royal Society. John Wilkins was the first within the Soci- ! jety to produce a work showing that a character could be de- j [vised which would prove both scientifically accurate and | (facile" (pp. 90-91). Poldauf sees a direct connection be- | itween Wallis' work and Wilkins' Essay: "One of the members : I of the Circle [Oxford Scientific Circle] meeting together with Dr. Wallis, first in London then in Oxford, was Bishop ! John Wilkins . . . He was charged by the Royal Society to work at the scheme for a universal language, and there is no( jdoubt that Wallis had contributed to it. For his scheme fori an international writing or "character" he certainly depen- ’ ;ded on Wallis's art of deciphering. This is most evident 1 (from the fact that we know of Wallis's treatise on secret (Writing, whose second edition appeared posthumously in 1694.1 | . . . Evidently, Wilkins's precursors were not few, but his ; <work has to be mentioned here, because there is so much in i j |common between the English grammatical science which had itsi 'foundation stone laid by Wallis and the theories underlying j jwilkins's Essay . . . There is the same effort to analyse | |and classify in order that system, the universal structure ; I of languages, may be discovered" (pp. 82-83) . ! I i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. r 1 4 3 cal languagej" as Wallis did correct Wilkins for using a j iwrong symbol for friend (McIntosh, pp. 90-91). Thus, it is j ! i ! ! (likely that some notions in Wilkins' Essay were influenced I I . . 9 ! jby Wallis' thinking. ; | | | Additional evidence indicating that Wallis was con- j ! jcerned with fundamental underlying relationships basic to j |all tongues and that his claim may be a comment about the ■ j : irationale of the GRG lies in the fact that he left out "many! (parts of his Subject. It can be argued that the Doctor, j i (by using the names of classical cases (nominative word, ;accusative word, genitive, etc.) and by not presenting a ! I (full description of English parts of speech, accidence, and jsyntax, implied that he was aware that certain deep struc- ! i ! 'tures were the same for all languages and that a solid | 9 i Indeed, Wallis may deserve as much attention as Bishop Wilkins receives from Chomsky in CfL (p. 28): "At about the same time, Bishop Wilkins distinguishes those con-; structions that are merely 'customary1 (take one's heels and! fly away, hedge a debt, be brought to heel, etc.) from those! which follow the "natural sense and order of the words" and j therefore need no special discussion (p. 354); for example, ! the arrangement of Subject, Verb, and Object, or Subject, ! (Copula, and Adjective, or the ordering of 'grammatical' and , i'transcendental' particles relative to the items they gov- |ern, etc." (p. 354). | "^Quoted in Baker (pp. 431-432) from William Ward, A j grammar of the English Language in Two Treatises (York, j (1767), praefatio. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. foundation in Latin grammar provides strong insights into |the basic underlying rules of English. Even though Wallis presents no opinions on universal- j I philosophical grammar in the GLA, he attaches such impor- I i i t i jtance to a knowledge of classical grammatical names as a j i ; jprerequisite to mastering English, that at times he seems , ! to be bordering on the notion that Latin grammatical fea- i . ; jtures are universal (GLA, pp. 32, 37-38, 66-68 supra). His mentioning of some English grammatical categories only in jpassing (e.g., relative pronouns, pp. 48-50 supra) and not ; igiving them further elaboration indicates that he assumed jhis readers could understand the notions simply by drawing Ion their command of Latin grammatical relationships . I f | j : 'this is the Doctor's orientation, then his accusing Port- j i iRoyal of imitation is really an objection lodged against i i "some Frenchmen" who upstaged him and composed a grammar around a "method" he had seriously discussed earlier with i colleagues in the Oxford Scientific Circle, without having jhad occasion to write a work in rational-philosophical ! jgrammar himself. I Although the most probable speculation is that Wallis' > Jclaim is— however unjustly— directed against the rationale s I j I . . |of the GRG, several analyses of the tv/o grammars indicate ; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 5 j t h a t W a l l i s a n d P o r t - R o y a l a r e a t o p p o s i t e p o l e s o f p h i l o s - i i [ophy. There is no connection made between the Doctor's | j G r a m m a t i c a , p h o n e t i c s o r a c c i d e n c e , a n d t h e G R G . W a l l i s i s t classified as an empiricist, in direct opposition to the i . i iFrench rationalists and later seventeenth- and eighteenth- j ! l x ! j c e h t u r y w r i t e r s . M o r e o v e r , m o s t o f t h e i m p o r t a n t l i n - I i 1 I g u i s t i c c o n c e p t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e G R G a r e f o u n d i n a n e a r l i e r ' jwork b y L a n c e l o t a l o n e , t h e N o u v e l l e m e t h o d e p o u r f a c i l e m e n h et un peu temps comprendre la langue latine (1644) (hence- forth, NML). Since Wallis‘ text appeared nine years after j the NML, he would not be justified in claiming to be the I j (first grammarian to consider the linguistic notions found | 12 in the GRG. In addition, his Grammatica provides no | Vorlat, although relating Wilkins 1 Essay to the GRG, ' (finds no evidence linking Wallis' text with the French: "The empirical, scientific approach reaches its culminating ! point in the later 17th century grammars of Wallis and Cooper. The philosophic concern starts with Cooper and goesi ion, in various forms and on various levels of value, in the | 18th century" (I, 59). Christopher Cooper, a phonetician in; jthe Royal Society, published a grammar in 1685, bearing the i jsame title as the GLA; Dobson (pp. 280-310) considers Cooper| to be the greatest orthoepist of the seventeenth century, i though he failed to receive the reputation of Wallis or Wilkins. , | "^Robin Lakoff in her review of the GRG (pp. 343-364) makes no mention of Wallis; she claims that the authors of jthe GRG derived their notion that there are two types of Iconstructions found in all languages, the "simple" and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 6 concrete evidence that he was speculating on general ly • n 1 3 I philosophical grammar. i i It seems to me that Wallis 1 use of the term "method" indicates that he is claiming credit for the orientation of ; J the GRG, even though when one compares the French work with ; I the GIA, their philosophical foundations are vastly differ- ; ent. In the context of all the long-standing arguments Wallis had with various scholars, the Doctor's charge is no , i I ; surprise. It is certainly in character and justifies con temporary opinion that Wallis was always waiting in the wings "to entitle . . . to himself" any new developments in ! I I --------------------- - ."figurative," from the NML. The first type, in which every-J jthing is present that is logically needed to comprehend a |sentence, corresponds to the current concept of deep struc- : |ture; the second, similar to the notion of surface struc- j Iture, is produced from a simple construction by the appli cation of optional rules. She concludes that the GRG should |not be considered a primary linguistic source, for it is not; intelligible of itself and contains few insights of its own.! 13 Ian Michael, who cites both of Wallis 1 accusations ; ! against Port-Royal (p. 165), discusses whether the Doctor understood the term "grammar" in a universal sense, i.e., the Port-Royal approach. In Michael's opinion, there is no ! ireference to universal grammar in the text except for one ; spot in the praefatio (p. 10) where one might suppose that j Wallis is talking about "language in itself." The context, ihowever, indicates that Wallis is not referring to language |in general, but only to English. Michael believes that jWallis had "too sound an understanding of the particularity I of English— which was, in fact, the point he was most con- I jcerned to establish — " to have any truck with notions of ! I universal grammar. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 7 science or linguistics.'"" Most likely, Wallis saw in the iFrench work the development of some of the linguistic no tions he had considered in discussion with his colleagues at Oxford, and his penchant for public dispute prevented him I i {from keeping quiet. He was, if this speculation is correct,i I i unaware of Lancelot's 1644 predecessor to the GRG. 14 For William Holder's full evaluation of Wallis, see {chapter V, p. 110. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VIII THE GRAMMATICA LINGUAE ANGLICANAE j AS AN EFL TEXT ; Having speculated on the reasons behind Wallis 1 charge ! ; |against the Port-Royalists, I should now like to present an ; I : ^evaluation of the Grammatica itself, focusing on the acci- i j ! idence and syntax. The earlier sections of the text, De i I Loguela (concerning the formation of speech sounds) and De_ : I j pronunciatone (concerning the pronunciation of the English llanguage), do not fall within the scope of my study. Since : i : t i |the main reason for Wallis' producing a grammar was to | ; i ! !enable foreigners to read books on practical theology and ! j i general literature in English, I shall evaluate the latter j half of the text (GLA, pp. 67-128) as a manual for acquiring reading skills. Dr. Wallis' students would be learning English as a j third language, developing a competence which they would lutilize to two ways— to follow written theological arguments i : i i i 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and to read works of literature. No matter what their j i 1 native tongue, a reading knowledge of Latin, which they j ipossessed, would enable Wallis' audience to follow his pres-j j | j i entation of the parts of speech and syntactic signals of , English as he described them in classical grammatical ter minology. Hence the acronym EFL (English as a Foreign Lan- i I i jguage) is more appropriate m discussing the Grammatica than ESL (English as a Second Language). The traditional dis tinction between EFL and ESL, maintained carefully by the ! | jBritish, limits the former to situations where English is jtaught as a school subject solely for the purpose of im- iproving reading and listening ability (the goal Wallis had j tin mind for his GLA), similar to the purposes of foreign ! i i ' (language classes in the United States . In contrast, ESL Irefers to cases where English has become the language of j I ; instruction in the schools of a country (e.g., the Philip- I , pines) or is the lingua franca among speakers of a wide variety of tongues (e.g., India) .^ I ^For further details see: Albert H. Marckwardt, "Eng lish as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Lan- Iguage," in Teaching English as a Second Language, ed. Haroldi IB. Allen (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 3-8, and Richard B. Noss, "Politics and Language Policy in Southeast j Asia," Language Sciences, 16 (August 1971), 25-32. Noss makes a distinction between the terms "foreign language" andj Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 0 In the context of the EFL framework described above, i I ;an "ideal" present-day text for classroom presentation would! | be one in a series of progressively more difficult volumes, accompanied by a teacher's manual offering suggestions for j variation and expansion of material. Commencing with simple; dialogues, grammatical explication, and a rigidly controlled vocabulary, the series would lead up to more advanced Eng- | ilish in later volumes, introducing reading passages and 'paragraph writing based on the material presented in earlier1 i ' I ; jdialogues . In the initial stages of language learning the student would master short exchanges, building up an inven- ; jtory of patterns restricted in context, and acquiring a j ; jworking vocabulary. Ideally, each volume would build on [the previous one, and the student would advance to the next j j 1 ! level only after mastering the material in the preceding book. Learning the contents of each volume in sequence would allow a sense of accomplishment, and supplemental "second language"; the former refers to any tongue that is "relevant to language policy of some kind in a given coun try, " e.g., a non-indigenous language offered in a univer- ' sity course. He also introduces a subcategory of foreign languages, viz., the so-called dead religious languages which are studied in written form, e.g., Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Sanskrit, etc. Like Marckwardt, Noss uses "second' language" to refer to a tongue which is given special pref- j erence in the educational policy of a given country (Englishj in the Philippines). ! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jrecords or tapes would allow individual practice and pace- I i i j (Setting. A series of this sort would be geared to the i 1 2 audio-lingual method, i.e., teaching language skills in the order of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The student advances from practicing utterance discriminations, ; i 1 jto mastering carefully graded dialogues, to reading edited j : I I : (material with a controlled vocabulary, and, it is hoped, to : lattempting an analysis of works of literature. It is during ! these later stages of language acquisition that written jexercises are introduced; students attempt to answer a ; jseries of questions in order to generate a paragraph, lead- : ; i ing eventually to less rigidly controlled written assign- i I ments. Ideally, after being exposed to an audio-lingual ;EFL series, the student would be fluent enough to select I ! his own reading material and to compose short pieces of writing in his own subject areas . ! Obviously, it is grossly unfair to judge John Wallis' Grammatica by modern standards evolved out of quite differ- i ( lent socioeconomic needs and developed over a 300-year j o For a discussion of the rationale and methodology behind the audio-lingual, grammar-translation, direct, and j ’reading methods in EFL, see Wilga Rivers, Teaching Foreign j Language Skills (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ! 1970), pp. 1-55. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 1 5 2 period. The field of EFL has matured since Wallis' time so he cannot be held to inappropriate requirementsj however, for purposes of evaluating his text this somewhat improper j procedure of comparing it to current manuals may serve. Thej i ! grammar-translation method of language teaching used during j (Wallis1 time has been superseded in many instances by an ! i Jaudio-lingual approach. Whereas the accidence and syntax , ;in the GLA serve as a hey to the written language, current 3 imanuals like Rutherford's Modern English (henceforth, ME) I ; ; i i ! jfocus on the spoken language and utilize aural-oral tech- ; I , iniques in the form of dialogues, utterance discrimination ! ! i Exercises, and intonation contours, along with a transfor- j i j . i imational-generative approach to drills, exercises, and j ! . . 4 ! jgrammatical explication. ■^William Rutherford, Modern English (New York: Har- ' court, Brace, and World, 1968). ! ^In his teacher's manual, Rutherford (p. 6) indicates that he is using the notion of transform in a pedagogical - 'sense, to represent "a 'relationship' between two surface • ; patterns having similar deep structure. One pattern is ; 'taken to be basic, the other a transformation of it." For ! jexample: "There + be . . . results from a transformation. | !The basic sentence contains an indefinite NP as subject + be., A breeze is blowing. j j => There's a breeze blowing. | A shelf is empty. j i = > There's a shelf empty. ( ME, p. 51) j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. | Rutherford's text opens with a review of certain gram matical points that prove difficult for EFL students; the ; | i J I jrest of the manual is divided into twenty sections, each j progressively more difficult and structured according to the* following schema: Part I— dialogue, utterance discrimina tion drills, micro-dialogue (to be memorized), new phrases; ■ I Part II— grammatical discussion and explication, drills, i j |supplementary word lists; Part III— reading passage, writ- jing exercises. In order that the student may practice i I !variations of the structures that occur in each dialogue, i 1 I many different types of drills are employed. Reading pas- ! I ’ sages stem directly from the preceding dialogues, and sup- I I i Elementary vocabulary lists provide words analogous to those ! 'introduced in the dialogues. Written exercises are based on transformational-generative theory; students combine, re arrange, or restate kernel sentences according to various transformational applications, culminating in the construe- : tion of paragraphs at the end of units 18 to 20. The final exercise consists of a "free paragraph," i.e., a passage i 'developed from a given opening sentence, or part of a sen- i tence . | ME_ utilizes both contemporary and traditional language-; i teaching techniques . Among the contemporary techniques I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jare the following: ! 1. The presentation of dialogues based on everyday jsituations that foreign students confront constantly is an j i ! |integral part of audio-lingual methodology. The EFL student, mimics the main dialogue and memorizes the abridged micro- | : jdialogue. i | 2. Pattern drills stem from the preceding material i 5 and are based on generative-transformational theory. Stu- Idents manipulate given structures, converting and expanding | jthem into various types of surface combinations, and going 'beyond simple item replacement. j 3 . There is an amount of creativity involved in ME, i !in that the learner is not restricted to parroting dialogue i structures, but is allowed to manipulate various types of i ; isurface structures via a series of transformations and to 'respond freely to question drills. 5 For example: ; 1. His class is to dig up the information. ; It's his class that's to dig up the information. 2 . His task is to dig up the information. j It's his task to dig up the information. (p. 453) :The above is an oral exercise; a written one would be as follows: | 1. He's certain that there is little choice. | What he's certain of is that there is little | choice. (p. 354) _____________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 5 The traditional features of ME include the grammatical J ^ iexplication based on structural analysis, copious supple- j Imentary word lists, and short reading passages. The de- ! jscription of morphological changes involving plural, pos- jessive, past tense, comparative, superlative, etc., approxi mate Wallis' treatment. The long lists of vocabulary items i :are similar to the copious examples in the GLA. ! These features are also characteristic of Ben Jonson's 7 j English Grammar, a text which relied heavily on examples I jfrom the works of famous authors to illustrate a grammatical I i point. Jonson's text, which Wallis acknowledged in his ! jpraefatio, was produced "for the Benefit of all strangers." I jBook One covers etymology, or what Jonson calls "the true 'notation of words." Within it are twenty-two chapters i [dealing with letters, vowels, consonants, diphthongs, ®Many of Rutherford's grammatical points are presented in a descriptive-structural manner, e.g., "The class of modals includes (in addition to can, will, should, and would) could, may, might, and must. These forms have a wide range of meanings . . ." (p. 426); "The pattern had verb -ed/had been verb-ing constitutes the past perfect tense; i had been verb-ing is the continuous form. This tense is iused for making differences in past tense explicit" (p. 1435) ; "And, or, and but, called conjunctions, join sentences 'as well as parts of sentences . . . The position of the con junctions (between the two sentences to be joined) is fixed . ." (p. 449) . I I 7 — j 'In The Works of Ben jonson (London: M. and T. Long man, 1756), pp. 206-289. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 6 jsyllables, accent (stress), notation of a word (affixation |and compounding)j parts of speech, nouns, diminutives, ! ! comparisons, noun declensions (two), pronouns, verbs (tense formation), verb conjugations (four), adverbs, and conjunc- ; tions. Book One is oriented heavily toward a latinate j framework, with Jonson stating in Chapter XI, "Of the Parts ; i | 'of Speech," that in English, "we number the same parts with | j ' jthe Latins: Noun, Pronoun, Verb, Participle, Adverb, Con- ; [junction, Preposition, Interjection. Only we add a ninth, i | ;which is the article" (p. 245). Maintaining a latinate schema, Jonson divides English nouns into two declensions, i : j ! based on the changes they undergo to form plurals. English ;verbs are classified into- four conjugations based on how | j !they form the past tense. j j Whereas Book One covers Etymology, "the true notation I J > ;of words," Book Two treats Syntaxe, "the right ordering of 1 them, " in nine chapters. The first chapter deals with the apostrophe and how it is used to indicate loss of a vowel (elision); the second, "Of the Syntax of one Noun with an- j |other," discusses agreement of noun and pronoun in gender : ! : iand number, position of adjectives before nouns, two nouns ! loccurring side by side to form a possessive construction, j I j land apposition; the third, "Of the Syntax of a Pronoun with i ! : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 7 a Noun, " treats the use of articles with substantives and ! jthe position of the article before adjectives. Chapter IV, j "On the Syntax of Adjectives," presents a description of what words adjectives are connected with in sentences . The j i comparative degree is coupled with than; the superlative, with ojf. The use of more and most is also discussed. i Chapter V, "Of the Syntax of a Verb with a Noun," focuses j ! I Ion agreement in number and person of nouns and pronouns with! Iverbs, along with impersonal constructions. Chapter VI, J ; | "Of the Syntax of a Verb with a Verb," discusses infini tives, modals, past participles with have and am, future i j 'expressions, perfect tenses, and passives. Chapter VII, "Of the Syntax of Adverbs," presents the various types of j i . I 'adverbs and describes their positions m sentences, their i ! 'formation with -ward, and their relationships with other words . Conjunctions are discussed in Chapter VIII, where I their position in sentences is described; and is called a i 1 "coupling conjunction"; for, a "severing" one. Jonson's itext closes with a unit on the "Distinction of Sentences," iwhere he presents punctuation rules covering the use of the - I 'comma, semicolon, colon, period, parenthesis, question mark,; land exclamation point. He relates some of these items to j i breath pauses, shorter ones for commas, longer ones for ; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 8 periods . Throughout the second book, Jonson cites copious illustrative examples from such well-known writers as Ascham, Chaucer, Sir Thomas More, and John Gower. Wallis' text differs greatly from Jonson's in that the Doctor does not enumerate the traditional eight parts of jspeech at the beginning of his accidence and syntax. i i jRather, he attempts to describe English on its own terms i i . . . 8 ;and to break away from a rigid latinate schema. Jonson ! g ; Ian Michael (p. 218) assigns parts-of-speech system 4 Ito Jonson: j Noun Adverb Pronoun Conjunction i Article Preposition Verb Interjection I Participle The only difference between a pure latinate framework (sys tem 1 in Michael) and Jonson's schema is that he considers ! the article another primary part of speech. Wallis is as signed system 25 (p. 241): } Substantive Adverb Adjective Conjunction V, perhaps as Pronoun Preposition [ particle Article Interjection Verb (incl. participle) iSince the Doctor does not enumerate the latinate parts of ispeech, one has to examine the arrangement of his material |in order to discover what system is operating; in Michael's ^opinion, Wallis has accepted from Latin those items he handles in separate chapters, while looking upon the last jfour categories in schema 25 perhaps as particles, since he covers them all in his last chapter on word classification (XIII); according to Michael, Wallis was definitely "in clining towards some fresh system" (p. 204).______ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 9 defines etymology as "the true notation of words," i.e., | I jthe morphological changes words undergo m a language, and I he uses the term to cover accidence and phonology. Wallis' use of the term is restricted to Chapter XIV (De Etymo- logia), where he discusses how various parts of speech are | I jformed, either one from the other (functional shift) or via j I : {affixation; he includes a discussion of cognates and bor- i 1 rowed words, along with lists of initial and final consonant1 t : 9 clusters that have an identifiable meaning. While Jonson j ^Associating consonant clusters with certain meanings jwas a widespread practice during Wallis' period and indeed iwell into the nineteenth century. Michael Drayton (1563- 1631) and Robert Greene (1558?-1592) both felt that in poetry certain sound combinations carried connotations of ' Isadness, dullness, heaviness, etc. See, in particular, : {Greene's "Sephestias' Song to Her Child" and Drayton's {"Agincourt." Edgar Allan Poe also used sound combinations very effectively in "The Fall of the House of Usher": ! "During the whole of a dull, dark, and soundless day . . . through a singularly dreary tract of country . . . as the shades of evening drew on . . . the hideous dropping off of the veil." The repetition of d-dr-tr in initial position i jseems to suggest dullness and gloom. More recently, Ronald W. Langacker, in Language and , ilts Structure (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968), suggests that the vowel sound of nut often occurs in words denoting ideas involving heaviness, dullness, or filth (p. 26) . Thomas Pyles and John Algeo, in English: An Intro- i duction to Language (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, : |1970), p. 98, discuss snouch, a word which does not exist ! in English but which apparently possesses built-in negative , meaning based upon its initial and final cluster and the ; diphthong /aw/. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 0 lards his text with copious passages from great literary figures, Wallis is content to describe the structure of English without examples from literature. He does not cite examples even in his chapter on poetry. Lastly, whereas Jonson divides his treatise into two books, the first deal ing with accidence, the second with syntax, Wallis touches on English syntax only in Chapter XI, where he discusses | jthe position of the nominative and accusative word, the iadverb not, and the auxiliary. While no part of the Gram- I I Imatica is set aside for the treatment of syntax as a whole, I ------ iChapter XI does focus on word position and points out the .'analytic nature of English."^ While the GLA shares some features with Jonson's text (accidence, syntax, grammatical explication, Latin termi- j nology), Wallis' framework differs markedly from that of a i jmodern "ideal" text. The GLA presents a general picture of i ^English grammar but lacks the audio-lingual material (dia- I Rogues, drills, exercises) needed to teach the language. i j jModern manuals focus on the spoken language in the initial ; ' i ! t 1 ’ | I i ^GLA, pp. 59-60 supra; Baker (pp. 269-279) agrees that' Wallis' Chapter XI deals primarily with word orderj in marked contrast, Michael (p. 467) states that Wallis neitherj discusses nor describes English syntax but at least "re- j frains from saying that English has none." ' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stages and work up to reading and writing later. In con trast, Wallis 1 main concern is with the written language, for his purpose is to teach reading skills. (The first two parts of the GLA deal with spoken language, but not in an i [ Jaudio-lingual sense.) Compared to Rutherford's ME, Wallis' text contains jsimilar grammatical information, though presented in struc- i Itural terms However, the GLA contains no drills, dia- i * 1 I jlogues, writing exercises, or reading passages. Both texts I (share extensive grammatical explication and copious vocabu- i ilary lists, along with the underlying assumption that the | jforeign students using the books are highly intelligent and 12 jwell-motivated. | Although there are exercises in ME based on transfor mational-generative techniques, much of Rutherford's text is geared to a behaviorist view of language learning, i.e., ■^Wallis' sentence pattern schema (GLA, pp. 59-61 . supra) comes close to those presented in the following works: W. Nelson Francis, The Structure of Modern English : (New York: Ronald Press, 1958), pp. 367-429; Charles C. iFries, The Structure of English (New York: Harcourt, Brace, (and World, 1952), pp. 142-172; Paul Roberts, English Sen tences (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1962), pp. jl8-57 . | ^Paul J. Angelis, in a review of ME. (TESOL, 5 [June |1971], 160-161) indicates that Rutherford "assumes intelli gence and high motivation in his audience^."_________ _____ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ithat language is a set of habits and that habit formation ! lean best be developed in a stimulus-response framework, I exemplified in the operant conditioning model of B- F. 1 3 Skinner. The student mimics the main dialogue and memo- : i Irizes the micro-dialogue, responding on cue to various typesj i i I ; i of pattern drills. In the initial stages of language acqui- ] sition, drill is an effective way to forge strong habits from which the learner never deviates . Language elements ' I ! iare manipulated in fixed relationships . This early-stage approach is inductive, in that the student acquires an [inventory of patterns and then draws conclusions based upon ! Sana logy. I Whereas ME_ operates for the most part on a mechanical j ; [stimulus-response level in its employment of audio-lingual techniques, allowing the student to follow an inductive approach to the grammatical rules of English, the GLA and Jonson's English Grammar operate on an understanding level, explaining the rules a student must know in order to read 'English. The approach is deductive, in that the student is I ; shown the more abstract relationships that obtain within the! ! ; j "^Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, j j 1 9 5 7 ) . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 3 grammar of Latin and English. It is assumed that a knowl edge of classical latinate structures will enable the | | learner to understand the rules of English. In this respectj the GLA and Jonson's text are closer to Chomsky's view of language learning, i.e., that it is impossible to acquire a ; system of grammar by imitation and generalization. Some I 'deductive explanation and some establishing of rules are j ! (essential. Students must understand how the structures they: jseek to master relate to the other parts of the grammatical ■ i (system in order that they may construct new utterances. I jBoth the GLA and Jonson's treatise attempt to provide the . . learner with an understanding of the rules of English. They I 'assume that a knowledge of the grammar of one tongue enables I ! I !a learner to gain insights into the grammatical operations !of another. I Clearly, Wallis' treatise falls far short of current iEFL teaching materials, but one can still evaluate it in ! I I terms of seventeenth-century language pedagogy. During the (Doctor's lifetime languages were taught primarily via a j I |grammar-translation method. In the case of Latin, the order; j (of classroom presentation would be somewhat as follows : (teacher reads a letter of Cicero to the class in Latin; j i j jteacher translates into English, parsing each item; studentsj Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .................... 1 6 4 ] parse items over again; students translate Latin letter into English; finally., students have to translate their own Eng- J I j j 1 lish back into Latin. The teacher leads each pupil and j J helps him connect the rules in his grammar with the examples! ! in the passage under translation. The student has to find a: I ! jrule in his grammar for every grammatical construction in | ] i jhis assignment. Instead of reading his grammar alone, he has to use it as a dictionary to untangle the intricacies I i 14 lof the assigned passage. This is most likely the way a i ; Jforeign student would use Wallis 1 GLA in the beginning I stages. | ! Other activities and exercises that would contribute jto developing a competence in Latin included: paraphrasis (to express a Latin oration in other Latin words); meta- ; phrasis (to take a passage from a Latin poem and express it Sin prose, or vice versa); epitome (to reduce a passage to ^smaller form, i.e., a precis); imitatio (to follow the best i lauthors and speakers); declamatip (to practice public ! 14 | Roger Ascham, The Schoolmaster, Book I, m The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, ed. Rev. Dr. Giles (London: John jRussell Smith, 1864), III, 90-92; the technique described is called a "double translation" and although it was quite j common in schools of the sixteenth century, Ascham is usu- 1 •ally given credit for the approach. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 5 j s p e a k i n g ) . A l t h o u g h t h e s e w e r e t h e w a y s " a p p o i n t e d b y t h e j | best learned men, for the learning of tongues and increase of eloquence" (Ascham, III, 174), only two were advocated iby Ascham— double translation and imitation, the former for j i 15 I jbeginners, the latter for the advanced. , I ' j W a l l i s 1 G r a m m a t i c a w o u l d b e a u s e f u l t o o l i n A s c h a m ' s j I : ipedagogical framework. The beginning student working on a ! : Jreligious passage in English could perform a double trans lation, using the GLA as a dictionary in which to look up ! ! jgrammatical rules for the constructions in the material. ! j iunder study. Ideally, after extensive practice the pupil ! Would be able to piece together the development of a theo- jlogical argument, relying on the GLA for grammatical expli- j j : (cation and on a bilingual dictionary for vocabulary. The j ultimate aim would be to enable the student to read reli- ! gious treatises at sight. D u r i n g W a l l i s 1 l i f e t i m e q u i t e a f e w b i l i n g u a l d i c t i o n - ; I aries (English-Latin) were being published. (By the 1550's ■ i ■ ,there was a demand for small cheap dictionaries among i 15 . . . ! Ascham ruled out the three remaining devices and had i (nothing to say about declamatip, for portions of The School-i master (157 0) were either never completed or lost. See , Lawrence Ryan, ed., The Schoolmaster (157 0) by Roger Ascham ! (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. xxxii-j xxxv. : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 6 schoolboys.) The least expensive and most widely used text i I . : was John Withal's Shorte Dictionarie for Yonque Begynners J i (1553), reprinted more than a dozen times between 1556 and 1664; other texts included Richard Huloet's Abcedarium j i Anqlico Latinum (1552), John Baret's Alvearie (1573), John | j jRider's Bibliotecha Scholastica (1589), and the Rider- ! ! Holyoke Dictionarie (1606, 1612, 1617, 1626, 1627, 1633, , I f ;1640, 1648-49, 1659, 1676-77). Wallis' students had access I ! to these volumes or to one published initially after the GLA; j lappeared: Christopher Wase's Dictionarium minus (1662), j i ' : j i ! Francis Gouldman's Copious Dictionary in Three Parts (1664, ; |l669, 1673-74, 1674, 1678), Thomas Holyoke's Large Diction- I j ary in Three Parts (1677), and Elisha Cole's Dictionary, j j i j Enqlish-Latin and Latin-Enqlish (1677) and English Diction- j 16 i ary (1676) . I j | Within the seventeenth-century grammar-translation framework for language learning (i.e., the student working by himself with the aid of the GLA and a bilingual 1 16 DeWitt T. Starnes, Renaissance Dictionaries (Austin: {University of Texas Press, 1954), pp. 147-290; Christopher | Wase borrowed a technique from Bishop Wilkins; in the 1675 j j Dictionarium minus each English entry is followed by an ; 'explanatory word in parentheses, a framework taken from the j Essay, e.g., "to abide (or dwell)— commororari." j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 7 d i c t i o n a r y ) , I b e l i e v e W a l l i s ' t e x t w o u l d b e a n a d e q u a t e t o o l , a m a n u a l f o r m a l t i n g a t r a n s l a t i o l i n q u a r u m i n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p r e a d i n g s k i l l s . A r m e d w i t h t h e G L A a n d a s o l i d j g r a s p o f L a t i n , t h e f o r e i g n s t u d e n t f r o m t h e C o n t i n e n t w o u l d ; i b e a b l e t o l e a r n e n o u g h E n g l i s h , p r a c t i c i n g o n h i s o w n , t o I i n t e r p r e t w o r k s o f p r a c t i c a l t h e o l o g y . T h e l e a r n e r w o u l d b e , 17 : o p e r a t i n g i n a r e s t r i c t e d c o d e , a p p l y i n g h i s k n o w l e d g e o f E n g l i s h g r a m m a r ( d r a w n f r o m t h e G L A ) a n d h i s l a t i n a t e v o c a b - ; I I l u l a r y t o a n a n a l y s i s o f r e l i g i o u s p a s s a g e s . D e v e l o p i n g a I j w o r d s t o c k f o r t h e o l o g i c a l r e a d i n g s w o u l d n o t p r o v e a n i n - i I j s u r m o u n t a b l e h u r d l e s i n c e , a s I n d o - E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e s , E n g - ! ! j l i s h a n d L a t i n s h a r e m a n y l e x i c a l i t e m s , e s p e c i a l l y r e l i - i g i o u s t e r m s . I i i I I | T o s u m u p , t h e n , W a l l i s 1 G r a m m a t i c a , a l t h o u g h l a c k i n g j ; " ^ T h i s c o n c e p t s t e m s f r o m c u r r e n t w o r k b y P e t e r ] S t r e v e n s , a B r i t i s h l i n g u i s t , w h o f e e l s t h a t l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g o f t e n h a s t o i n v o l v e a r e s t r i c t i o n p r o c e s s , " i n w h i c h a | d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n i s m a d e t o r e s t r i c t t h e i t e m s w h i c h o n e j i s g o i n g t o t e a c h , l i m i t i n g o n e s e l f t o t h o s e n e e d e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r d e g r e e o f f o r m a l i t y ( e . g . , b y i g n o r i n g a l l s t y l e s ! i m o r e f o r m a l o r i n f o r m a l t h a n t h e o n e t h a t i s c h o s e n ) , a n d ; f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e ( e . g . , t h e R u s s i a n o f e l e c t r i c a l ; j e n g i n e e r i n g , o r r o c k e t t e c h n o l o g y , o r l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g ) . . . These procedures— selection of a variety of the lan guage and restriction to certain items from a particular professional register and style within that variety— are j necessary steps in the task ..." (Papers in Language and I Language Teaching [London: Oxford University Press, 1965], ; jp. 35) . I I I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 8 many of the techniques of a modern text like Rutherford's, ! I {appears to be an adequate pedagogical grammar for its time, j Rather than presenting his material in terms of rote memo- rization with copious literary illustrations (Jonson's approach)j Wallis lets his audience deduce the major con trastive features of Latin and English. Assuming a high jlevel of intelligence and literacy in his students (as does { | : Rutherford) , he draws out and builds upon their classical i I {grammatical knowledge. Having discovered for themselves i I jthe structural differences between Latin and English and larmed with a bilingual lexicon, Wallis 1 readers would be { i iable to work through a religious tract or even a literary jpassage via a grammar-translation technique. j j j i Modern manuals emphasize audio-lingual techniques, j | i fusing dialogues, drills, and utterance contours to aid the ! | {learner in mastering the phonology and intonation of the j target language. Wallis was also concerned with the pro- i ! i nunciation of English, but his earlier phonological material; i (GLA, pp. 1-67) is presented in a traditional articulatory 1 j {phonetics framework. The second half of his text, the ! {accidence and syntax, serves as a key to the written lan- * guage. Wallis provides a modest "pre-structural" comparison; i of Latin and the target language. Although not casting { Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. English into a rigid Latin mold (like Jonson), the Doctor ^maintains latinate terminology, for he was not willing to i break away completely from the classical tradition. He was astute enough to realize that a grammar written in Latin iwould be marketable beyond the English Channel. The many i jreprints and republications of the Grammatica attest to its | popularity. I I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j C H A P T E R I X | C O N C L U S I O N ! I T h e p r e v i o u s e i g h t c h a p t e r s s t e m f r o m m y t r a n s l a t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s o f J o h n W a l l i s ' G r a m m a t i c a L i n g u a e A n q l i c a n a e ; j a n d f r o m a d d i t i o n a l s e c o n d a r y m a t e r i a l a b o u t W a l l i s h i m s e l f . : ( T h e a n a l y s i s h a s s h e d l i g h t o n t h e D o c t o r , h i s t r e a t m e n t o f i t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e , a n d h i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P o r t - R o y a l . I h a v e e x a m i n e d h i s a l l e g a t i o n s a n d ' s p e c u l a t e d a b o u t t h e i r p o s s i b l e m o t i v a t i o n s a n d v a l i d i t y . i i ! A s t u d y o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l m i l i e u o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( C h a p t e r I I I ) i n d i c a t e s t h a t W a l l i s j l i v e d d u r i n g a t u r b u l e n t p e r i o d i n B r i t i s h h i s t o r y , a p e r i o d ! o f r e l i g i o u s t u r m o i l a n d p o l i t i c a l u p h e a v a l . F o r t u n a t e l y , h i s c r y p t o g r a p h i c s k i l l s a l l o w e d h i m t o r e m a i n a l o o f f r o m t h e e x t e r n a l b r o u h a h a . H e w a s f r e e t o p u r s u e h i s w i d e r a n g e i o f i n t e r e s t s a n d t o h e l p w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e R o y a l | ! ; i S o c i e t y . H o w e v e r , p i r a t i n g f r o m a u t h o r i t a t i v e s o u r c e s w a s i : ( c o m m o n p l a c e a n d W a l l i s , f a i l i n g t o r i s e a b o v e t h e s t r e a m o f | Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 1 charges and countercharges, participated fully in the tur- jbulence of scholarly disputations . i My biography of Dr. Wallis (Chapter IV) demonstrates his concern with things linguistic and illustrates his in sights into the methodology of teaching English to deaf- j I : mutes . The greater part of Wallis 1 earlier schooling, j I devoted to language rather than to mathematical pursuits, j qualified him to contribute to the Royal Society committees | ifor improving the English tongue and for developing a uni- > I ! jversal means of communication. The Doctor's knowledge of . iseveral languages and his skills as a decipherer made him ’ I ian excellent colleague for Bishop Wilkins in the research jhe was doing for his Essay, which was also influenced by i j | Port-Royal. j ! i ! The Doctor's clashes with eminent mathematicians and j grammarians (Chapter V) testify to his penchant for contro- ! versy. Indeed, heated argument and uncompromising polemics j ■characterize much of his life; the Doctor's passion for i ! dispute never ceased. He was eighty-three years old when he appended the claim of imitation against Lancelot and , lArnauld to his Opera Mathematica (1699). i : j i ! I Comparing and contrasting the GLA and GRG in Chapter VI; I i j jresults in the conclusion that the two texts are vastly ! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 j | d i f f e r e n t i n t e r m s o f a c c i d e n c e , s y n t a x , a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l j j f r a m e w o r k . O n e i s a p e d a g o g i c a l m a n u a l ; t h e o t h e r , a " w o r k | i ! j o f r e a s o n i n g . " j | i j j i E v a l u a t i n g W a l l i s 1 c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e F r e n c h ( C h a p t e r ! ; j v i l ) d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e m o s t p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n f o r t h e j ; D o c t o r ' s u s e o f t h e t e r m " m e t h o d " i n h i s a c c u s a t i o n i s t h a t j h e b e l i e v e d t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e G R G w a s ' ; j I b o r r o w e d f r o m h i m w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g m e n t — a s p e c u l a t i o n i w h i c h c a n n o t b e s u p p o r t e d b y e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e G L A o r i r e c e n t a n a l y s e s o f W a l l i s 1 t e x t . T h e m o t i v a t i o n s b e h i n d I W a l l i s 1 c l a i m s m o s t l i k e l y s t e m f r o m t h e l i n g u i s t i c q u e s - i I ; t i o n s h e d i s c u s s e d w i t h h i s s c i e n t i f i c c o l l e a g u e s a t O x f o r d j a n d f r o m h i s p e n c h a n t f o r c o n t r o v e r s y . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f ; i ! jWallis1 letters on the methodology of teaching English to j t ! i d e a f - m u t e s , h i s c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h B i s h o p W i l k i n s , h i s i s k i l l i n s e c r e t c o d e a n a l y s i s , h i s l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i z i n g w i t h t h e O x f o r d G r a m m a r i a n s , a n d h i s m e m b e r s h i p o n R o y a l . S o c i e t y c o m m i t t e e s t o s i m p l i f y t h e E n g l i s h t o n g u e a n d d e l v e l o p a u n i v e r s a l l a n g u a g e , i t i s n o t u n l i k e l y t h a t h e w a s I a w a r e o f u n d e r l y i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s a c r o s s l a n g u a g e s , t h e jcommon notions of grammar that reflect universal mental i ; I operations. I I . | j Discussing the effectiveness of the Grammatica as an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 3 E F L p e d a g o g i c a l m a n u a l f o r t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g s k i l l s ( C h a p t e r i I V I I I ) f u r t h e r d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e G L A f r o m t h o s e o f t h e G R G . T h e f o r m e r a p p e a r s a s a m o d e s t c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s o f L a t i n a n d E n g l i s h ; t h e l a t - ! i i i t e r , a t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t i s e r a n g i n g o v e r a v a r i e t y o f j 1 t o n g u e s . W i t h i n t h e l a n g u a g e - l e a r n i n g f r a m e w o r k o f t h e ; p e r i o d , i . e . , t h e f o r e i g n s t u d e n t w o r k i n g o n h i s o w n v i a a I ! ! [ g r a m m a r - t r a n s l a t i o n a p p r o a c h , t h e G L A w o u l d f u n c t i o n a s a n [ i , i i a d e q u a t e t e a c h i n g d e v i c e . i j i ■ | D r a w i n g o n t h e m a t e r i a l i n t h e e i g h t p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s i t j | o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o W a l l i s a n d h i s G L A , o n e c a n r e a c h ! j s o m e t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e D o c t o r , h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o l i n g u i s t i c s , a n d h i s a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e j i F r e n c h g r a m m a r i a n s o f P o r t - l l o y a l . I t i s h o p e d t h a t t h i s j i ' r e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f W a l l i s a n d h i s G r a m m a t i c a m a y c o n t r i b u t e j ! ! I t o f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y l i n g u i s - ! t i c s . D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t m o s t e n c y c l o p e d i a s l i s t o n l y J o h n ; ; W a l l i s 1 m a t h e m a t i c a l a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s , h e s h o u l d b e r e m e m b e r e d a s w e l l f o r h i s i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f E n g - j [ l i s h . N o w r i t e r b e f o r e h i m h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d s o t h o r o u g h l y j | h o w E n g l i s h g r a m m a r d i f f e r s f r o m L a t i n g r a m m a r , a n d m a n y w r i t e r s a f t e r h i m , i n t h e s c h o o l - g r a m m a r t r a d i t i o n , b o r r o w e d Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 4 extensively from his Grammatica. Bishop Lowth took up the Doctor's shall-will rule and passed it on to Lindley Murray. Many other writers, including Samuel Johnson, copied mate rial verbatim from the GLA.1 During Wallis' lifetime, the i i I Grammatica was reprinted six times over a fifty-year period i 2 I (1653-1703), an average of one printing every eight years. i There were also several posthumous editions, including an J I : |abbreviated version in 1731. | ! ■ ' " S a m u e l J o h n s o n h a d q u i t e a b i t t o s a y a b o u t W a l l i s . | T h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s , f r o m D r . J o h n s o n ' s 1755 G r a m m a r , j a f f i x e d t o h i s D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e , t y p i f y ; W a l l i s ' i n f l u e n c e : " T h e l e a r n e d , t h e s a g a c i o u s W a l l i s t o j w h o m e v e r y E n g l i s h G r a m m a r i a n o w e s a t r i b u t e o f r e v e r e n c e " (p. xxvi); "Our verbs are observed by Dr. Wallis to be ir regular only in the formation of the preterite, and its j participle" (p. xxxii); "In this inquiry (derivation) I j shall sometimes copy Dr. Wallis, and sometimes endeavour to i supply his defects and rectify his errours " (p. xxxiii); j | "The following remarks, extracted from Wallis, are ingeni- j jous, but of more subtlety than solidity, and such as perhaps! jmight in every language be enlarged without end. Sn usu- j ally imply the nose, and what relates to it, etc." (p. xxxv) ( A Grammar of the English Language [Philadelphia: ! jJacob Johnson, 1805]) . For an account of what a strong 1 iinfluence Wallis had on subsequent grammatical treatises, j see H. G. Baker's thesis and the following articles by j Charles Fries: "The Periphrastic Use of Shall and Will," ; ! and "The Periphrastic Future with Shall and Will in Modern j ^English," PMLA, 40 (1925), 963-1024. I ! : ^This rate compares favorably even with twentieth- i century texts like Harbrace College Handbook (1941, 1946, j 1951, 1956, 1962, 1967, 1972), Writer's Guide and Index to , English (1939, 1942, 1950, 1959, 1965), and Century Colle- | giate Handbook (1924, 1939, 1950) . J Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 5 The Grammatica forms part of a tradition which, until (recently, had received scant attention from modern language theoreticians. However, since the GLA is basically an EFL manual, it provides no link to an historical base for generative-transformational grammar. In this respect it 3 . 1 differs sharply from the GRG. The GLA is the work of a i j practical Puritan, whose major concerns were not with j j I (theoretical linguistic notions but with utilitarian ones. j i i (He wanted his foreign readers to gain access to religious j I | (treatises written in the vernacular of England] at the same j jtime, as a strong proponent of English nationalism and as j lone who espoused both the simplicity and copiousness of ! Chomsky maintains (CL, pp. 31-33) that the GRG con- j jtains notions similar to deep vs. surface structure: "Using! jsome recent terminology, we can distinguish the 'deep | 'structure' of a sentence from its 'surface structure.' The ! former is the underlying abstract structure that determines ! :its semantic interpretation] the latter, the superficial jorganization of units which determines the phonetic inter pretation and which relates to the physical form of the jactual utterance, to its perceived or intended form. In ! jthese terms, we can formulate a second fundamental conclu sion of Cartesian linguistics, namely, that deep and surface structures need not be identical. The underlying organiza tion of a sentence relevant to semantic interpretation is j jnot necessarily revealed by the actual arrangement and | phrasing of its given components. This point is brought outj with particular clarity in the Port-Royal Grammar, in which a Cartesian approach to language is developed, for the first time, with considerable insight and subtlety." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 6 English., he wanted his students to be able to read great 'authors like Edmund Spenser. His Grammatica is the tool his readers can utilize to teach themselves English. Wallis 1 claim of imitation against the Port-Royalists i | most likely stems from a combination of factors, some not I directly connected with his Grammatica. Clearly, the Doctorj was anti-French and would not let pass any opportunity for j j t 1 engaging in scholarly disputations with French mathemati- j i ! jcians, philosophers, and grammarians. He was also quite j | j [nationalistic, praising the elegance, copiousness, and t [simplicity of the English tongue, while downgrading the j I Norman French influence. He did not think much of English- i men who larded their speech with foreign vocabulary, at- ! I | 'tempting to add a "French air" to their conversations. When! | | ;he made the 1699 charge against Port-Royal, England was at j jwar with France, so external conditions also may have en- j [couraged him to attach the insult. Lastly, Wallis was j i ; :eighty-three when his Opera Mathematica appeared and, for the first time in his life, was conscious of physical de- ! i jterioration. His declining physical capacities may have j i ' [been a factor behind his complaint against the French. | Despite all these influences, however, it seems to me that Wallis' use of the term "method" points to the notion Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 7 t h a t h e w a s u p s e t b y " s o m e F r e n c h m e n " u p s t a g i n g h i m a n d i p u b l i s h i n g a r a t i o n a l - p h i l o s o p h i c a l g r a m m a r w i t h a n u n d e r l y i n g r a t i o n a l e s i m i l a r , p e r h a p s , t o i d e a s a b o u t l a n g u a g e w h i c h h e h a d s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d w i t h h i s s c i e n t i f i c c o l - ! ; i l e a g u e s a t O x f o r d . M a n y r e c o r d s a n d r e p o r t s w e r e l o s t o r i | d e s t r o y e d d u r i n g t h e G r e a t F i r e a n d t h e G r e a t P l a g u e , s o i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s t h e l i n g u i s t i c r e s e a r c h c o m p l e t e d b y , ; t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y c o m m i t t e e s o n l a n g u a g e a n a l y s i s w h i c h W a l l i s b e l o n g e d t o . I n d e e d , o n l y r e c e n t l y h a v e o r i g i n a l 'sources like the 1653 Grammatica become accessible. It is i i i h o p e d t h a t f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o t h e D o c t o r ' s l i f e a n d ! I l i n g u i s t i c s c h o l a r s h i p a n d i n t o t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y m a y l e a d I t o a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t s c o n c e r n i n g h i s c u r i o u s c l a i m a g a i n s t ! ( 1 i p o r t - R o y a l . i I j W h a t e v e r m a y h a v e b e e n t h e m a i n i m p e t u s b e h i n d t h e | : ! c h a r g e a g a i n s t L a n c e l o t a n d A r n a u l d , t h e f a c t r e m a i n s t h a t ! W a l l i s w a s i n t e n s e l y i n v o l v e d w i t h l i n g u i s t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . H i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o E n g l i s h m o r p h o l o g y a n d I s y n t a x , a l t h o u g h n o t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l i j i ; i r o o t s o f c u r r e n t w o r k b y C h o m s k y , c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d a r e m o t e i t j f o r e r u n n e r o f F i l l m o r e ' s c a s e g r a m m a r , a n d c a n b e c o n n e c t e d i i j t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t s c h o o l o f l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s . C h o m s k y j j ! j h a s v e n t u r e d i n t o p h i l o s o p h y , p a r t i c u l a r l y e p i s t e m o l o g y , a n d | Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 8 r e v i v e d t h e c l a s s i c r a t i o n a l i s t n o t i o n — d e v e l o p e d i n i t i a l l y b y P l a t o a n d e x p a n d e d b y D e s c a r t e s d u r i n g W a l l i s ' l i f e t i m e — j [ i | t h a t c e r t a i n i d e a s a r e i n n a t e i n t h e m i n d . T h e h u m a n m i n d ! | i s e q u i p p e d w i t h a m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a u n i v e r s a l g r a m m a r w h i c h , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e s o f a l a n g u a g e ( w h i c h m u s t b e l e a r n e d ) , e n a b l e s a s p e a k e r o f a n y i { t o n g u e t o g e n e r a t e a n i n f i n i t e n u m b e r o f s e n t e n c e s v i a { f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s c a l l e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . T h e g r a m m a r t h a t : j e p i t o m i z e s t h e s e r a t i o n a l i s t i c n o t i o n s i s t h e P o r t - R o y a l I j i G R G . ; W a l l i s ' G r a m m a t i c a L i n g u a e A n q l i c a n a e a n d P o r t - R o y a l ' s ' i 1 I : i Grammaire generale et raisonnee are just two examples of seventeenth-century linguistic scholarship, currently being ; I : ! ' r e p r i n t e d a n d r e - e x a m i n e d a s p o s s i b l e a n t e c e d e n t s o f ! ' { p r e s e n t - d a y g r a m m a t i c a l n o t i o n s a n d m o d e l s , T h e G R G h a s ' r e c e i v e d m u c h a t t e n t i o n f r o m b o t h p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d l i n - ! g u i s t s i t h e G L A , c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s . T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n h a s a t t e m p t e d t o m a k e a v a i l a b l e a t r a n s l a t i o n o f W a l l i s 1 a c c i - i j d e n c e a n d s y n t a x a n d t o d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o t h e G r a m m a t i c a a s j j t h e w o r k o f a g i f t e d a n d v e r s a t i l e s c h o l a r , s o a s t o f i t t h e ! { t r e a t i s e i n t o r e c e n t e f f o r t s t o d i s c o v e r t r a c e s o f c u r r e n t : I { l i n g u i s t i c t h i n k i n g i n t h e " A g e o f R e a s o n . " j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B I B L I O G R A P H Y I I i j i | 179 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY A a r s l e f f , H a n s . " ' C a r t e s i a n L i n g u i s t i c s ' : H i s t o r y o r F a n t a s y ? " L a n g u a g e S c i e n c e s , 17 ( O c t o b e r .1971), 1-12. _. " T h e H i s t o r y o f L i n g u i s t i c s a n d P r o f e s s o r C h o m s k y . " L a n g u a g e , 40 ( S e p t e m b e r 1970), 570-585. _. " L e i b n i z o n L o c k e o n L a n g u a g e . " A m e r i c a n Philosophical Quarterly, 1, No. 3 (1964), 1-24. ___________. The Study of Language in England. Prince ton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1967. Allen, Harold B . Linguistics and English Linguistics . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. _________________, ed. Teaching English as a Second Language J N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1965. i | A l s t o n , R . C . A B i b l i o g r a p h y o f t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e f r o m j t h e I n v e n t i o n o f P r i n t i n g t o t h e Y e a r 1800. 8 v o l s . L e e d s : E . J . A r n o l d , 1965. 1 j A n g e l i s , P a u l J . R e v i e w o f M o d e r n E n g l i s h b y W i l l i a m R u t h e r f o r d . T E S O L , 5 ( J u n e 1971), 160-161. A n o n . " O f t h e O r i g i n a l a n d P r o g r e s s o f t h e E n g l i s h T o n g u e ; ; F r o m t h e L a t i n o f D r . W a l l i s . " M o n t h l y M i s c e l l a n y o r M e m o i r s f o r t h e C u r i o u s , 2 (1708), 366-372. I I j A r n a u l d , A n t o i n e . L a L o g i g u e , o u l ' a r t d e p e n s e r (1662), | t r a n s . J . D i c k o f f a n d P . J a m e s a s T h e A r t o f T h i n k i n g , j I n d i a n a p o l i s : B o b b s - M e r r i l l , 1964. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Arnauld, Antoine, and Claude Lancelot. Grammaire generate et raisonnee (1660), trans . Thomas Nugent as General ! and Rational Grammar (1753). Menston: Scolar Press, j 1968. t jAscham, Roger. The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, ed. Rev. j Dr. Giles. London: John Russell Smith, 1864. i I •Bach, Emmon and Robert Harms. Universals in Linguistic ! Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Baker, Howard G. "The Contribution of John Wallis to the | Methods and Materials of English Grammar." Unpub- j lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, j 1938. •Baugh, Albert C. A History of the English Language. New J York: D. Appleton-Century, 1957. I ;Bliss, Philip, ed. Reliquae Hearnianae. London: John • Russell Smith, 1869. i bolton, Whitney F., ed. The English Language . Cambridge; j Cambridge University Press, 1966. i IBowring, John, ed. Works of Jeremy Bentham. New York: ' Russell and Russell, 1962. iBracken, Harry. "Chomsky's Variations on a Theme by Des- | cartes ." Journal of the History of Philosophy, 8 1 (April 1970), 181-192. Brown, Goold. Grammar of English Grammars. New York: i William Wood, 1869. i J I c a t a l o g u e g e n e r a l d e s l i v r e s i m p r i m e s d e l a B i b l i o t h e g u e | N a t i o n a l e . P a r i s : L a B i b l i o t h e q u e N a t i o n a l e d e j France, 1935. | i JChomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965. _______________. Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 2 Chomsky, Noam. "The Case against B. F. Skinner." New York Review of Books, 17, No. 11 (December 30, 1971), 18-24. | _______________. "Knowledge of Language ." New York Times j Literary Supplement, 15 (April 1969), 523-525. _______________. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, j Brace, and World, 1968. _______________. "Recent Contributions to the Theory of ! Innate Ideas." Synthes'e, 17 (March 1967), 1-11. jCooper, Christopher. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (1685). i Menston; Scolar Press, 1968. i i Dinneen, Francis . An Introduction to General Linguistics. ! New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. ; i I iDobson, E. J. English Pronunciation 1500-1700. Oxford: ; Clarendon Press, 1968. Donze, Roland. La Grammaire generale et raisonnee de Port- ; Royal. Berne: S. A. Schuler, 1967. iFillmore, Charles. "The Case for Case." Universals in i Linguistic Theory. Ed. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms . | New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. ! j ___________________ . "A Proposal Concerning English Preposi- ; ! tions." Georgetown Roundtable Monograph, 19 (1966), I 19-33. i ___________________ . "Some Problems for Case Grammar." ; Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 10. Columbus: : Ohio State University, 1971. i i ___________________ . "Toward a Modern Theory of Case . " Modern Studies in English. Ed. Sanford Schane and | David Reibel. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- i Hall, 1969. I ; sFirth, J. R. Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford Uni- | versity Press, 1964. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 3 Francisj W. Nelson. The Structure of Modern English. New York: Ronald Press, 1958. S f ! iFries, Charles C. American English Grammar. New York: J D. Appleton-Century, 1940. __________________ . "The Periphrastic Future with Shall and Will in Modern English." PMLA, 40 (1925), 963-1024. | I | __________________ . "The Periphrastic Use of Shall and Will." Language Learning, 7 (1956), 38-99. __________________ . The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1952 . i i Funke, Otto. "On the System of Grammar." Archivum Lin- , ! guisticum, 6 (1953), 1-19. ! i t I j Gentleman's Magazine, 14 (1840) . j |Gil, Alexander. Logonomia Anglica (1621). Menston: Scolarj : Press, 1968. ,Gildon, Charles and John Bright land. A Grammar of the Eng- : | lish Tongue (1711). Menston: Scolar Press, 1967. i j I i ; [Gleason, Henry A. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965. | ; Greaves, Paul. Grammatica Anglicana. Wien und Leipzig: W. Braumiiller, 1938. Greenwood, James. An Essay Towards a Practical English | Grammar (1711). Menston: Scolar Press, 1968. jHalliday, Michael, Angus McIntosh, and Peter Strevens . The ' ! Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. Blooming- | ton: Indiana University Press, 1964. I | ! 'Hampshire, Stuart. The Age of Reason. New York: New i American Library, 1959. : | i Harris, James. Hermes or A Philosophical Inquiry into Uni- J versal Grammar. London: J. Nourse, 1751. j J Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 4 H a r t l e y , S i r H a r o l d , e d . T h e R o y a l S o c i e t y , I t s O r i g i n s a n d F o u n d e r s . L o n d o n : T h e R o y a l S o c i e t y , 1960. I I H e a r n e , T h o m a s , e d . P e t e r L a n g t o f t ' s C h r o n i c l e . O x f o r d : j T h e T h e a t r e , 1725. H o l d e r , W i l l i a m . E l e m e n t s o f S p e e c h (1669). M e n s t o n : S c o l a r P r e s s , 1967. j H o o k , S i d n e y . L a n g u a g e a n d P h i l o s o p h y . N e w Y o r k : N e w Y o r k | U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. i ' J a c k s o n , W . T . " D r . W a l l i s ' s L e t t e r A g a i n s t M a i d w e l l . " ! Collectanea, 1st ser. (1885), 269-272. j U o h n s o n , S a m u e l . A G r a m m a r o f t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e . P h i l - | a d e l p h i a : J a c o b J o h n s o n , 1805. i ' J o n e s , J o h n D . , e d . C o o p e r ' s G r a m m a t i c a L i n g u a e A n g l i c a n a e | (1685). H a l l e a n d e r S a a l e : M a x N i e m e y e r , 1911. J o n e s , R i c h a r d F . " S c i e n c e a n d L a n g u a g e i n E n g l a n d o f t h e M i d d l e S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y . " J o u r n a l o f E n g l i s h a n d | G e r m a n i c P h i l o l o g y , 31 (1954), 32 3-333. i I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . T h e T r i u m p h o f t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e . | S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953. Jonson, Ben. English Grammar . In The Works of Ben Jonson. London: M. and T. Longman, 1756. I | K a m p f , L o u i s . R e v i e w o f C a r t e s i a n L i n g u i s t i c s b y N o a m ■ C h o m s k y . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 28 (1967), 403-408. jKelly, Louis G. 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, | M a s s . : N e w b u r y H o u s e , 1969. ! i K e n n e d y , A r t h u r G . B i b l i o g r a p h y o f W r i t i n g s o n t h e E n g l i s h j L a n g u a g e f r o m t h e B e g i n n i n g o f P r i n t i n g t o t h e E n d o f j 1922 . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1927 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 5 L a k o f f , R o b i n . R e v i e w o f G r a m m a i r e g e n e r a l e e t r a i s o n n e e j j b y A r n a u l d a n d L a n c e l o t . L a n g u a g e , 45 ( J u n e 1969), | 343-364. ! ; I I L a m p r e c h t , S . P . " T h e R o l e o f D e s c a r t e s i n S e v e n t e e n t h - C e n t u r y E n g l a n d . " S t u d i e s i n t h e H i s t o r y o f I d e a s , 3 (1935), 181-242. L a n c e l o t , C l a u d e . N o u v e l l e m e t h o d e p o u r f a c i l e m e n t e t u n , p e u t e m p s c o m p r e n d r e l a l a n g u e l a t i n e . P o r t R o y a l , j 1644. i i L a n g a c k e r , R o n a l d . L a n g u a g e a n d I t s S t r u c t u r e . N e w Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e , a n d W o r l d , 1968. j L a n g e r , W i l l i a m , e d . A n E n c y c l o p e d i a o f W o r l d H i s t o r y . • Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1948. I l I j L e h n e r t , M a r t i n . D i e G r a m m a t i k d e s e n g l i s c h e n S p r a c h - I m e i s t e r s J o h n W a l l i s . B r e s l a u : P r i e b a t s c h , 1936. j I L e o n a r d , S t e r l i n g A . T h e D o c t r i n e o f C o r r e c t n e s s i n E n g l i s h 1 ! U s a g e 1700-1800. N e w Y o r k : R u s s e l l a n d R u s s e l l , 1962. I I | L e w i s , J o h n . L i f e o f W a l l i s . A d d . M S . 32601. j ! L o n g a c r e , R o b e r t . G r a m m a r D i s c o v e r y P r o c e d u r e s ■ T h e H a g u e : j M o u t o n , 1964 . | i L o v e j o y , A r t h u r . E s s a y s i n t h e H i s t o r y o f I d e a s . B a l t i m o r e : J o h n s H o p k i n s P r e s s , 1948. ! , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . T h e G r e a t C h a i n o f B e i n g . N e w Y o r k : j H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1936 . t ; i i L o w t h , R o b e r t . A S h o r t I n t r o d u c t i o n t o E n g l i s h G r a m m a r . j ! L o n d o n : M i l l e r a n d D o d s b y , 1762. i I | ( L y o n s , J o h n . N o a m C h o m s k y . N e w Y o r k : V i k i n g P r e s s , 1970. i (McIntosh, Margaret. "The Phonetic and Linguistic Theory of | the Royal Society School, from Wallis to Cooper." j Unpublished B .Litt. thesis, Oxford University, 1956. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 6 M c K n i g h t , G e o r g e . T h e E v o l u t i o n o f t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e . N e w Y o r k : D o v e r P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1928. M a d a n , F a l c o n e r . O x f o r d B o o k s : A B i b l i o g r a p h y . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1931. M a i r e , A l b e r t . B i b l i o g r a p h i e g e n e r a t e d e s o e u v r e s d e B l a i s e ! P a s c a l . 5 v o l s . P a r i s : G i r a u d - B a d i n , 1925-27 . M a r c k w a r d t , A l b e r t H . " E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e a n d English as a Foreign Language." Teaching English as a Second Language. Ed. Harold B. Allen. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Mayor, J. E. B. "Dr. John Wallis." Notes and Queries, 9 | (January-June 1860), 95-96. i : iMehta, Ved. "Onward' and Upward with the Arts— John Is Easy ; j to Please." New Yorker, May 8, 1971, pp. 44-87. i i I j j M i c h a e l , I a n . E n g l i s h G r a m m a t i c a l C a t e g o r i e s a n d t h e T r a - ! | dition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University | Press, 1970. M i e l , J a n . " P a s c a l , P o r t - R o y a l , a n d C a r t e s i a n L i n g u i s t i c s . " , J o u r n a l o f t h e H i s t o r y o f I d e a s , 30 ( N o v e m b e r 1969), | 267 . Moore, J. L. "Tudor-Stuart views of the Growth, Status and ; Destiny of the English Language." Studies in English : P h i l o l o g y , 41 (1910) . i ! . Noss, Richard B. "Politics and Language Policy in Southeast j Asia." Language Sciences, 16 (August 1971), 2 5-32. I N o u v e l l e b i o g r a p h i e g e n e r a l e . P a r i s : F i r m i n D i d o t , 1862. ' " O r i g i n a l L e t t e r s . " M o n t h l y M a g a z i n e , 14 ( J u l y - D e c e m b e r j | 1802), 251-253. ! i , jpartridge, A. C. Tudor to Augustan English. London: Andre: Deutsch, 1969 . ; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 7 Percival, Keith. "The Notion of Usage in Vaugelas and in the Port-Royal Grammar." Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April | 1968, pp. 165-176. I I p e t e r s , R o b e r t A . A L i n g u i s t i c H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h . B o s t o n : j H o u g h t o n M i f f l i n , 1968. I Pike, Kenneth. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of , the Structure of Human Behavior. Glendale: Summer ; Institute of Linguistics, 1954. P l o t , R o b e r t . T h e N a t u r a l H i s t o r y o f O x f o r d - S h i r e . L o n d o n : , S. M i l l e r s , 1677. I I i ; ; P o e , E d g a r A l l a n . W o r k s . N e w Y o r k : B l a k e m a n a n d M a s o n , ! 1859. ! j I |Poldauf, Ivan. On the History of Some Problems of English j , Grammar Before 1800. Prague: Charles University, ! 1948. j 1 ; l S p u r v e r , M a r g e r y . T h e R o y a l S o c i e t y : C o n c e p t a n d C r e a t i o n . : ; C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : M I T P r e s s , 1967. I P y l e s , T h o m a s . T h e O r i g i n s a n d D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e . N e w Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e , a n d W o r l d , 1964.! I | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a n d J o h n A l g e o . E n g l i s h : A n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o ! L a n g u a g e . N e w Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e , a n d W o r l d , 1970.; j Reibel, David A. and Sanford A. Schane. Modern Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Ha11, ; 1969. i ; R i g a u d , S t e p h e n , e d . C o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f S c i e n t i f i c M e n . j j O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1841. I : R i v e r s , W i l g a . T e a c h i n g F o r e i g n - L a n g u a g e S k i l l s . C h i c a g o : ; U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1970. j : ! i j R o b e r t s , P a u l . E n g l i s h S e n t e n c e s . N e w Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , ; B r a c e , a n d W o r l d , 1962. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 8 Robins, Robert H. Ancient and Mediaeval Grammar Theory in j Europe. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1951. ; i j | __________________. "Noun and Verb in Universal Grammar." | Language, 28 (1952), 289-298. j __________________. A Short History of Linguistics. Bloom- | ington: Indiana University Press, 1967. j Rosher, Stanley and Lawrence Abt, eds . The Creative Ex- ; perience. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1970. iRutherford, William. Modern English. New York: Harcourt, | Brace, and World, 1968. I Ryan, Lawrence, ed. The Schoolmaster (1570) by Roger 1 Ascham. Ithaca, N. Y. : Cornell University Press, i j 1967. i i i Sainte-Beuve, Charles-Augustin de. Port-Roya1. Paris: : Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 1954. i : Salmon, Vivian. "Language Planning in Seventeenth-Century | England: Its Contexts and Aims." In Memory of J . R . : | Firth. Ed. C. E. Bazell et al. London: Oxford Uni- I versity Press, 1966. j 1 . ! ________________. "Problems of Language-Teaching: A Discus- ; | sion among Hartlib's Friends." Modern Language Review,: 59 (1964), 13-24. _. Review of Cartesian Linguistics by Noam Chomsky. Journal of Linguistics, 5 (April 1969), 165- i 187 . ! jScheurweghs, Gustave and Emma Vorlat. "Problems of the | | History of English Grammar." English Studies, 40 j (1959), 135-143. I : i ^Scott, J. F. The Mathematical Works of John Wallis. Lon- | don: Taylor and Francis, 1938. Shapiro, Barbara. John Wilkins 1614-1672; An Intellectual | Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press, | 1969. j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 9 Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1957. ' 1 ; jSprat, Thomas. History of the Royal Society. St. Louis: | Washington University, 1958. jStageberg, Norman. An Introductory English Grammar. New j | York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971. j i 1 . j iStarnes, DeWitt T. Renaissance Dictionaries . Austin- University of Texas Press, 1954. i The Statutes of the Realm. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, | 1819; rpt. 1963. V, 364-370. | I jStrevens, Peter. Papers in Language and Language Teaching. j London: Oxford University Press, 1965. : i i I ■ _________________, ed. Five Inaugural Lectures. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. ’ i jSundby, Bertil. "A Case of Seventeenth-Century Plagiarism."’ I English Studies, 33 (1952), 2 09-213. jTucker, Susie. English Examined. Cambridge: Cambridge j University Press, 1961. Ussher, George. The Elements of English Grammar (1785). i Menston: Scolar Press, 1969. Valdman, Albert. Trends in Language Teaching. New York: 1 McGraw-Hill, 1966. I jverhaar, John W. M. "Philosophy and Linguistic Theory." ! Language Sciences, 14 (February 1971), 1-11. i 1 Viereck, Wolfgang. Review of A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year ! j 1800 by R. C. Alston. Journal of English Linguistics, | 1 2 (March 1968), 135-141. | j Vorlat, Emma. Progress in English Grammar 1585-1735: A j Study of the Development of English Grammar and of the Interdependence among the Early English Grammarians. 4 vols. Luxembourg: E. A. Peiffer, 1964. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 9 0 Wallisj John. A Defense of the Royal Society. London: ; T. S. for Thomas Moore, 1678. ; i ] ] . Grammatica Linguae Anqlicanae (1653) . | Menston: Scolar Press, 1969. I j______________. Grammatica Linguae Ancflicanae. Oxford: j | Lichfield, 1664. j I I ! | ______________. Letter to Mr. Thomas Beverly, Concerning His j j Method for Instructing Persons Deaf and Dumb. London: ; j J. Greenwood, 1706. I . Letter to Robert Boyle, Esq., Concerning the , Said Doctor's Essay of Teaching a Person Dumb and Deaf | to Speak, and to Understand a Language. London: J . i Greenwood, 1706. i ' j . Opera Mathematica. Vol. III. Oxford: j Sheldon Theatre, 1699. j ‘ 1 I Ward, William. A Grammar of the English Language in Two Treatises . York, 1767. I |Waterman, John T. "The Languages of the World: A Classi- i fication by G. W. Leibniz." Studies in Germanic Lan- ! quages and Literatures, 1963, pp. 27-34. j ; _________________ . Perspectives in Linguistics. 2nd ed. ! Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Weiner, Leo. "Richard Mulcaster, an Elizabethan Philolo gist." Modern Language Notes, 12 (1897), 65-70. ■ i j Weld, Charles. History of the Royal Society. London: I J. W. Parker, 1848. Wilkins, John. Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philo- : sophical Language. London: John Martin, 1668. j Wing, Donald. Short Title Catalogue. Vol. III. New York: | Columbia University Press, 1951. j I j jwotton, William. Reflections on Ancient and Modern Learn- ! ing. London: J. Leake, 1694. ! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 9 1 |Wullenweber, Franz. Beitraqe zur Geschichte der enqlischen ! Grammatik. Berlin: R. GaertnerSj 1892. I i t [ Zachrissonj Robert. "Notes on Some Early English and French! Grammars." Beiblatt zur Anglia, 1914, pp. 245-253. jzimmer, Karl. Review of Cartesian Linguistics by Noam | Chomsky. International Journal of American Linquis- | tics, 34 (1968), 290-303. i I I I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator Raney, George William (author)

Core Title The accidence and syntax in john Wallis' 1653 "grammatica linguae anglicanae": a translation and a commentary on its alleged relationship to the 1660 port-royal "grammaire generale et raisonnee"

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Linguistics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-222925

Unique identifier UC11349267

Identifier 7300760.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-222925 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7300760.pdf

Dmrecord 222925

Document Type Dissertation

Rights RANEY, GEORGE WILLIAM

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA