A short introduction to English grammar — Themes and Context

A SHORT INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR: WITH CRITICAL NOTES.

Nam ipsum _Latine_ loqui est illud quidem in magna laude ponendum: sed non tam sua sponte, quam quod est a plerisque neglectum. Non enim tam præclarum est scire _Latine_, quam turpe nescire; neque tam id mihi oratoris boni, quam civis _Romani_ proprium videtur.

LONDON: Printed by J. HUGHS; For A. MILLAR in the Strand; And R. and J. DODSLEY in Pall-mall. 1762.

_The English Language hath been much cultivated during the last two hundred years. It hath been considerably polished and refined; it hath been greatly enlarged in extent and compass; its force and energy, its variety, richness, and elegance, have been tried with good success, in verse and in prose, upon all subjects, and in every kind of stile: but whatever other improvements it may have received, it hath made no advances in Grammatical accuracy._

_It is now about fifty years since Doctor ~Swift~ made a public remonstrance, addressed to the Earl of ~Oxford~, then Lord Treasurer, of the imperfect State of our Language; alledging in particular, “that in many instances it offended against every part of Grammar.” ~Swift~ must be allowed to have been a good judge of this matter. He was himself very attentive to this part, both in his own writings, and in his remarks upon those of his friends: he is one of our most correct, and perhaps our very best prose writer. Indeed the justness of this complaint, as far as I can find, hath never been questioned; and yet no effectual method hath hitherto been taken to redress the grievance of which he complains._

_But let us consider, how, and in what extent, we are to understand this charge brought against the ~English~ Language. Does it mean, that the ~English~ Language as it is spoken by the politest part of the nation, and as it stands in the writings of our most approved authors, oftentimes offends against every part of Grammar? Thus far, I am afraid, the charge is true. Or does it further imply, that our Language is in its nature irregular and capricious; not subject, or not easily reduceable, to a System of rules? In this respect, I am persuaded, the charge is wholly without foundation._

_The ~English~ Language is perhaps of all the present European Languages by much the most simple in its form and construction. Of all the ancient Languages extant that is the most simple, which is undoubtedly the most ancient: but even that Language itself does not equal the ~English~ in simplicity._

_The Words of the ~English~ Language are subject to fewer variations from their original Form, than those perhaps of any other Language whatsoever. Its Substantives have but one variation of Case: nor have they any beside the natural distinction of Gender. Its Adjectives admit of no change at all, except that which expresses the degrees of Comparison. All the possible variations of the original form of the Verb are not above six or seven; whereas in many Languages they amount to one or two hundred: and almost the whole business of Modes, Times, and Voices is managed with great ease by the assistance of eight or nine commodious little Verbs; called from their use Auxiliaries. The Construction of this Language is so easy and obvious, that our Grammarians have thought it hardly worth while to give us any thing like a regular and systematical Syntax. The last ~English~ Grammar that hath been presented to the public, and by the Person best qualified to have given us a perfect one, comprises the whole Syntax in ten lines. The reason, which he assigns for being so very concise in this part, is, “because our Language has so little inflection, that its Construction neither requires nor admits many rules.” In truth, the easier any subject is in its own nature, the harder is it to make it more easy by explanation; and nothing is commonly more unnecessary, and at the same time more difficult, than to give a Demonstration in form of a proposition almost self-evident._