Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/176

 but, rather, an obvious reason for their use. Our grammarians frequently manufacture a parcel of puerile examples, and, with the formality of apparent quotation, throw them together in the following manner: "He is above disguise;" "we serve under a good master;" "he rules over a willing people;" "we should do nothing beneath our character."--Murray's Gram., p. 118. These sentences, and all others so related, should, unquestionably, begin with capitals. Of themselves, they are distinct enough to be separated by the period and a dash. With examples of one's own making, the quotation points may be used or not, as the writer pleases; but not on their insertion or omission, nor even on the quality of the separating point, depends in all cases the propriety or impropriety of using initial capitals. For example: "The Future Tense is the form of the verb which denotes future time; as, John will come, you shall go, they will learn, the sun will rise to-morrow, he will return next week."--''Frazee's Improved Gram., p. 38; Old Edition'', 35. To say nothing of the punctuation here used, it is certain that the initial words, you, they, the, and he, should have commenced with capitals.

OBS. 5.--On Rule 3d, concerning Names of Deity, it may be observed, that the words Lord and God take the nature of proper names, only when they are used in reference to the Eternal Divinity. The former, as a title of honour to men, is usually written with a capital; but, as a common appellative, with a small letter. The latter, when used with reference to any fabulous deity, or when made plural to speak of many, should seldom, if ever, begin with a capital; for we do not write with a capital any common name which we do not mean to honour: as, "Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth--as there be gods many, and lords many."--1 Cor., viii, 5. But a diversity of design or conception in respect to this kind of distinction, has produced great diversity concerning capitals, not only in original writings, but also in reprints and quotations, not excepting even the sacred books. Example: "The Lord is a great God, and a great King above all Gods."--Gurney's Essays, p. 88. Perhaps the writer here exalts the inferior beings called gods, that he may honour the one true God the more; but the Bible, in four editions to which I have turned, gives the word gods no capital. See Psalms, xcv, 3. The word Heaven put for God, begins with a capital; but when taken literally, it commonly begins with a small letter. Several nouns occasionally connected with names of the Deity, are written with a very puzzling diversity: as, "The Lord of Sabaoth;"--"The Lord God of hosts;"--"The God of armies;"--"The Father of goodness;"--"The Giver of all good;"--"The Lord, the righteous Judge." All these, and many more like them, are found sometimes with a capital, and sometimes without. Sabaoth, being a foreign word, and used only in this particular connexion, usually takes a capital; but the equivalent English words do not seem to require it. For "Judge," in the last example, I would use a capital; for "good" and "goodness," in the preceding ones, the small letter: the one is an eminent name, the others are mere attributes. Alger writes, "the Son of Man," with two capitals; others, perhaps more properly, "the Son of man," with one--wherever that phrase occurs in the New Testament. But, in some editions, it has no capital at all.

OBS. 6.--On Rule 4th, concerning Proper Names, it may be observed, that the application of this principle supposes the learner to be able to distinguish between proper names and common appellatives. Of the difference between these two classes of words, almost every child that can speak, must have formed some idea. I once noticed that a very little boy, who knew no better than to call a pigeon a turkey because the creature had feathers, was sufficiently master of this distinction, to call many individuals by their several names, and to apply the common words, ''man, woman, boy, girl'', &c., with that generality which belongs to them. There is, therefore, some very plain ground for this rule. But not all is plain, and I will not veil the cause of embarrassment. It is only an act of imposture, to pretend that grammar is easy, in stead of making it so. Innumerable instances occur, in which the following assertion is by no means true: "The distinction between a common and a proper noun is very obvious."--Kirkham's Gram., p 32. Nor do the remarks of this author, or those of any other that I am acquainted with, remove any part of the difficulty. We are told by this gentleman, (in language incorrigibly bad,) that, "Nouns which denote the genus, species, or variety of beings or things, are always common; as, tree, the genus; oak, ash, chestnut, poplar, different species; and red oak, white oak, black oak, varieties."--Ib., p. 32. Now, as it requires but one noun to denote either a genus or a species, I know not how to conceive of those "nouns which denote the genus of things," except as of other confusion and nonsense; and, as for the three varieties of oak, there are surely no "nouns" here to denote them, unless he will have red, white, and black to be nouns. But what shall we say of--"the Red sea, the White sea, the Black sea;" or, with two capitals, "Red Sea, White Sea, Black Sea," and a thousand other similar terms, which are neither proper names unless they are written with capitals, nor written with capitals unless they are first judged to be proper names? The simple phrase, "the united states," has nothing of the nature of a proper name; but what is the character of the term, when written with two capitals, "the United States?" If we contend that it is not then a proper name, we make our country anonymous. And what shall we say to those grammarians who contend, that "Heaven, Hell, Earth, Sun, and Moon, are proper names;" and that, as such, they should be written with capitals? See Churchill's Gram., p. 380.

OBS. 7.--It would seem that most, if not all, proper names had originally some common signification, and that very many of our ordinary words and phrases have been converted into proper names, merely by being applied to particular persons, places, or objects, and receiving the distinction of capitals. How many of the oceans, seas, lakes, capes, islands, mountains, states, counties, streets, institutions, buildings, and other things, which we constantly particularize, have no other proper names than such as are thus formed, and such as are still perhaps, in many instances, essentially appellative! The difficulties respecting these will be further noticed below. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, group, or people; as, Adam, Boston, the Hudson, the Azores, the Andes, the Romans, the Jews, the Jesuits, the Cherokees. This is as good a definition as