Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/179

 must say, "the New-London Bridge." So "the New York Directory" is not properly a directory for New York, but a new directory for York. I have seen several books with titles which, for this reason, were evidently erroneous. With respect to the ancient Scripture names, of this class, we find, in different editions of the Bible, as well as in other books, many discrepancies. The reader may see a very fair specimen of them, by comparing together the last two vocabularies of Walker's Key. He will there meet with an abundance of examples like these: "Uz'zen Shérah, Uzzen-shérah; Talitha Cúmi, Talithacúmi; Náthan Mélech, Nathan'-melech; A'bel Mehólath, Abel-mehólah; Házel Elpóni, Hazelepóni; Az'noth Tábor, Asnoth-tábor; Báal Ham'on, Baal-hámon; Hámon Gog, Ham'ongog; Báal Zébub, Bäal'zebub; Shéthar Boz'näi, Shether-boz'näi; Meródach Bal'adan, Merodach-bal'adan." All these glaring inconsistencies, and many more, has Dr. Webster restereotyped from Walker, in his octavo Dictionary! I see no more need of the hyphen in such names, than in those of modern times. They ought, in some instances, to be joined together without it; and, in others, to be written separately, with double capitals. But special regard should be had to the ancient text. The phrase, "Talitha, cumi,"--i. e., "Damsel, arise,"--is found in some Bibles, "Talitha-cumi;" but this form of it is no more correct than either of those quoted above. See Mark, v, 41st, in Griesbach's Greek Testament, where a comma divides this expression.

OBS. 13.--On Rule 10th, concerning Personifications, it may be well to observe, that not every noun which is the name of an object personified, must begin with a capital, but only such as have a resemblance to proper nouns; for the word person itself, or persons, or any other common noun denoting persons or a person, demands no such distinction. And proper names of persons are so marked, not with any reference to personality, but because they are proper nouns--or names of individuals, and not names of sorts. Thus, Æsop's viper and file are both personified, where it is recorded, "'What ails thee, fool?' says the file to the viper;" but the fable gives to these names no capitals, except in the title of the story. It may here be added, that, according to their definitions of personification, our grammarians and the teachers of rhetoric have hitherto formed no very accurate idea of what constitutes the figure. Lindley Murray says, "PERSONIFICATION [,] or PROSOPOPOEIA, is that figure by which we attribute life and action to inanimate objects."--Octavo Gram., p. 346; Duodecimo, p. 211. Now this is all wrong, doubly wrong,--wrong in relation to what personification is, and wrong too in its specification of the objects which may be personified. For "life and action" not being peculiar to persons, there must be something else than these ascribed, to form the figure; and, surely, the objects which Fancy thinks it right to personify, are not always "inanimate." I have elsewhere defined the thing as follows: "Personification is a figure by which, in imagination, we ascribe intelligence and personality to unintelligent beings or abstract qualities."--Inst., p. 234.

OBS. 14.--On Rule 11th, concerning Derivatives, I would observe, that not only the proper adjectives, to which this rule more particularly refers, but also nouns, and even verbs, derived from such adjectives, are frequently, if not generally, written with an initial capital. Thus, from Greece, we have Greek, Greeks, Greekish, Greekling, Grecise, Grecism, Grecian, Grecians, Grecianize. So Murray, copying Blair, speaks of "Latinised English;" and, again, of style strictly "English, without Scotticisms or Gallicisms."--''Mur. Gram., 8vo, p. 295; Blair's Lect.'', pp. 93 and 94. But it is questionable, how far this principle respecting capitals ought to be carried. The examples in Dr. Johnson's quarto Dictionary exhibit the words, gallicisms, anglicisms, hebrician, latinize, latinized, judaized, and christianized, without capitals; and the words Latinisms, Grecisms, Hebraisms, and Frenchified, under like circumstances, with them. Dr. Webster also defines Romanize, "To Latinize; to conform to Romish opinions." In the examples of Johnson, there is a manifest inconsistency. Now, with respect to adjectives from proper names, and also to the nouns formed immediately from such adjectives, it is clear that they ought to have capitals: no one will contend that the words American and Americans should be written with a small a. With respect to Americanism, Gallicism, and other similar words, there may be some room to doubt. But I prefer a capital for these. And, that we may have a uniform rule to go by, I would not stop here, but would write Americanize and Americanized with a capital also; for it appears that custom is in favour of thus distinguishing nearly all verbs and participles of this kind, so long as they retain an obvious reference to their particular origin. But when any such word ceases to be understood as referring directly to the proper name, it may properly be written without a capital. Thus we write jalap from Jalapa, hermetical from Hermes, hymeneal from Hymen, simony, from Simon, philippic from Philip; the verbs, to hector, to romance, to japan, to christen, to philippize, to galvanize; and the adverbs hermetically and jesuitically, all without a capital: and perhaps judaize, christianize, and their derivatives, may join this class. Dr. Webster's octavo Dictionary mentions "the prussic acid" and "prussian blue," without a capital; and so does Worcester's.

OBS. 15.--On Rule 12th, concerning I and O, it may be observed, that although many who occasionally write, are ignorant enough to violate this, as well as every other rule of grammar, yet no printer ever commits blunders of this sort. Consequently, the few erroneous examples which will be exhibited for correction under it, will not be undesigned mistakes. Among the errors of books, we do not find the printing of the words I and O in small characters; but the confounding of O with the other interjection oh, is not uncommon even among grammarians. The latter has no concern with this rule, nor is it equivalent to the former, as a sign: O is a note of wishing, earnestness, and vocative address; but oh is, properly, a sign of sorrow, pain, or surprise. In the following example, therefore, a line from Milton is perverted:-- "Oh thou! that with surpassing glory crowned!" --Bucke's Gram., p. 88.