English Grammar, especially as far as it differs from Latin, arranged according to the unique method of Peter Ramus, in which what is required for the acquisition of this language is clearly taught

English Grammar, especially as far as it differs from Latin, arranged according to the unique method of Peter Ramus, in which what is required for the acquisition of this language is clearly taught. By Paul Greaves. Cambridge. From the Printing House of John Legate. Available in London at the sign of the Sun in St. Paul’s Churchyard. 1594.{n. p.}

To the book itself

A. C. Ogdoasticon.

Little book (and those who seek great things should not disparage the little ones!),

why do you fear the looks, the words, and the threats of men?

Can it be Zoilus’ fault? Your father supplies arms.

In fact, with his wit, zeal, skill, and hard work,

and with his rudiments, are enough (or I am deceived)

being born first, for you to be the fruit of your father.

Therefore, (what hinders you?) go forth! And these words to the readers:

Show consideration for this book, expanded if compared to the first fruits of its father.  

Book:

Abundantly, reader, will I be praised
If I am not scorned by you.

{n. p.}

Greetings to the reader.

I do not doubt that, by merely looking at the title, you reader will guess the obvious originality of this book, and that its novelty can encourage you to read it even more willingly. So that this desire may be partially satisfied, before you may consider this book – however short and written according to a concise method – more in depth, I will explain (if it may please) the causes, which urged me to approach the shallow and I am afraid rather uncouth discussion of so trifling a subject; when you have understood them, I do not doubt that you will be able to receive this small lucubration of mine with a kind soul.

No one can ignore how famous this English country has always been, and is even today, among the other southern regions of this world: since ancient books of the annals {A2} report this, the praises of illustrious men celebrate it; the written works of most learned men confirm it; and the foreigners witness to it not without admiration. Likewise, there should be no doubt that – by virtue of our glorious prestige and the renown of our fame – England may easily confer with the outstanding and mightiest powers of the world. After all, we have been surrounded by and walled in so many φανερὰ divine gifts, divine φιλίαϛ τεκμήρια, that all persons rightly envy and admire us, and among the almost infinite natural privileges, which Nature like an abundant and friendly rain has hitherto poured unto us, nothing may be desired further – either more useful in case of need or more pleasing to pleasure: merely as regards the embellishment of the language we seem to have been poorly and meagrely gifted: as if Mother Nature, forgetful of the maternal benevolence otherwise showed, had degenerated into a step-mother from the very beginning. But I believe (actually, I would believe anything but this) that Nature failed in this prudently – and therefore willingly. Just as when something neglected or at least not well-finished in the garments of a young, rather delicate, and affected woman is overlooked if compared to the greater beauty of the body and splendour of the whole figure, the other ornaments of the language – to draw a careful comparison of this shortcoming {n. p.} – result much brighter and more splendid if set against a different light. Of course, we do not compete as for the purity and elegance of the language with the Greeks or the Romans, who boast to be rightly superior to us and all the other peoples for the merit of their rhetorical skills. But I think that not even a bit of our own right must be surrendered to the French, the Italians, the Germans, the Spanish, or the other peoples, at whom Nature did not smile so kindly.

If the French require fluency and a theatrical elegance of pronunciation, they should come and see the young women and girls of our region – goddesses of kisses – enchanting men’s ears and souls with the same charm of Sirens.

If the Italians boast dignity and modesty of expression, they brag that we got from them not only our language, but also our origin and ancestry, and right to this day we are not at all different in terms of appearance and customs, as we are considered most similar to them for the sound of the language. If the Germans bring to the table the significance and vehemence of expression, I wonder what the English may not persuade them to do, given that each word of their language has the strength of just as many arguments. What should I say more? But that only our language is perfect among all others, and it has kept what is excellent in all areas for itself. This is testified {A3} by many distinguished and illustrious writers, who celebrated this language in their works for posterity to remember forever, so much so that nothing could be further added to its prosperity; nonetheless hardly anyone among many thousands (which is remarkable to say) has ever stood out, who cultivated the purity of the language, while all of them cultivated eloquence and rhetoric: so that it can be said that they are valued more for speaking eloquently rather than correctly, and for dedicating themselves to the work of rhetoric rather than grammar. Experience teaches that although the English people in this country – most of whom are gifted with not mediocre erudition – say everything accurately in other languages, they ramble all too shamelessly in the writing of their modern and native language; I will not reveal their names, but blame their vices. Locutions like the following are used everywhere: More better, such works was finished. He spake it to she. Whose fountains is dried up. Small wonder that common people speak utterly uncouthly, when those who are esteemed learned write so ignorantly and impurely. Not to mention how much everywhere the still unripe intellects of children may be twisted for this reason.

For instance, those who starts to learn the foreign letters will focus on the various inflections of the singular voices or the syntactic concord {n. p.} and agreement of the conjunctions before having learnt and investigated their own vernacular language and idiom, in what ways these should harmonize, which should respond to which, but if those masters and doctors of the letters – who do not want or cannot devise anything better for themselves – wanted to oppose such vice with these discoveries of ours, in my opinion they will put no useless effort into it. However, what the foreigners – in favour of whom I especially entrusted these considerations to the page in the first place – may avail of this book in the future, I do not doubt that they will acknowledge it willingly and with grateful spirit. Not only will they possess that, but also everything that is necessary to the acquisition of this most celebrated language, and was denied to them during the course of its secular evolution, which at last has been disclosed and given new life thanks to my work. Nor am I a fool, or one to whom these considerations seem so truly beautiful and perfect in all their parts not to think that something could be conveniently added or perhaps also removed; rather, they have been documented – although in a highly imperfect form – with this aim since the very beginning; to be sure, this labour of ours was not made to prevent the efforts of others, but rather conceived in the first place to spur on their attentiveness; so that those who may have the possibility would desire it, and those who should desire it may continue, {A4} persuaded by me, to refine and develop those same reflections which I have first outlined against Minerva’s will (as they say) and with Mercury’s scorn. However, reader, you will easily understand – being a generous and kind judge of honest work – what I attempted to supply; I do not doubt that you will approve my desire whichever it may be; besides, I am entirely persuaded that you will attest that I am diligently demonstrating how to treat the good letters in an appropriate way. Be well, 25 May. In the year of man’s redemption. 1594.  

Yours in Christ

Most obliged,

P[aul] Gr[eaves] {n. p.}

English Grammar especially as far as it differs from Latin.

Chap. 1

On the Alphabet.

There are five vowels a, e, i, o, u, for I think that y is to be absolutely expunged from their group.

Consonants can be either half-vowels or mute. Half-vowels are l, m, n, r, s, x, z.

Mute consonants are b, c, d, f, g, k, p, q, and t. I and u too are held to be consonants, when they are found alone or with other vowels in the same syllable, but they are written j and v, such as in object or invention. Among the consonants, y too must be ascribed but, when set before a vowel, it must be considered connected with the latter, such as in yet or yonder. {n. p.} A double V too produces a consonant, such as in wit.  

H has nothing of a letter, aside from the form; it is only the sign of the aspiration of the letter placed at its side, such as in thing.

It precedes all vowels, as in have, help, hind, hog, hurt.

Instead, it follows six consonants – c, g, p, t, w, s – as in chalk, ghost, philosophy, shadow, thief, what.

Mute c and t have the value and more often the sound of other consonants, which is the result of their different combination with the vowels. Conventionally, the pronunciation of C is twofold: k or s.

It is pronounced k when it immediately precedes a, u, o, as in call, custom, college; or when there is another letter in the middle, as in crab, club, clock; or before i or e with a consonant in the middle, as in crime, clemency. And even when it is the last letter of a syllable, as in accord.

Instead, it is pronounced s, when it is followed by e or appears right before i in the same syllable, as in censure or city. {n. p.}

However, it has a different sound from both these two when it is aspirated, as in child, or such – I believe this happens because k cannot be aspirated.

Instead, t sounds like c whenever the following syllable begins with a vowel, as in condition; except when it is preceded by x, s, or there is a medial h, as in mixtion, bustian, filthiest.

F is akin to the consonant v.

Letter g must be pronounced with the same sound that Gallus had among the ancient Romans, such as garter, give, gulf, again. Exceptions are gibbet, gibe, giblets, giant, gillie, ginger where it is realized as the G in gilvus. The same happens when it is placed right before i in mid-position, as in urging, or before e in every position, as in gentle, or changed, except for geese, gear, geld, guess, or get, which in any case follow the rules presented. 

N before g in mid-position has a sound between n and g, as in anger.  

Aspirated p has the value of f, as in physic.

S is incorrectly pronounced as z in az, iz, wize instead of as, is, wise. {n. p.}

There are 26 letters in total, which are ordered as follows in the vernacular alphabet: 

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. v. u. w. x. y. z.

Chap. 2.

On Syllables.

The syllable is the minimal unit of sound.

It is made up of one or more letters.

In the case of one letter, this can be any vowel.

In the case of more letters, a number of these are put together, and can be vowels only, or vowels and consonants.

The union of vowels is called diphthong.

In fact, only the union of two or more vowels is a diphthong.

In the case of two vowels, these can be either the same or different.

The doubling of the same vowel is either ee, {n. p.} as in sleep, or oo, as in book.

Of different vowels: ai as in faith, au as in authority, ea as in reason, ei as in receive, eo as in people, oa as in oar, oi as in void, ou as in ould [old].

In the case of different vowels, more than two vowels can assemble, as eau in beauty.

In the case of the union of vowels and consonants, vowels assemble with consonants indiscriminately, as in crime.

A syllable cannot have more than seven letters, as knottes [knotts].

It cannot admit more than two vowels, or one vowel and a diphthong.

It cannot be preceded or followed by more than three consonants.

No syllable has more than two mute consonants or half-vowels near itself.

At the beginning, two mute consonants never occur, and only sl, sm, sn among the half-vowels, as in slay, smoke, snake. In fact, one is always a half-vowel, and the other {n. p.} is always mute, as sc, Scarce; sp, Spice; st, Stick; bl, black; cl, clark; fl, flint; gl, glove; pl, place; gn, gnat; kn, knave; br, bread; cr, cream; dr, dream; fr, frogs; fr, grave; pr, Practise;tr, trencher, and sw, swan. In mid- or final position, any vowel can join with any other, but q always precedes the consonant v [u], as in qvake [quake].

Chap. 3.

On Substantives.

The category of number is expressed either through a noun or a verb.

A noun can be a substantive or an adjective.

Substantives distinguish the plural from the singular form by means of an -s, such as sing. horse, pl. horses. Sometimes we actually insert e to make pronunciation easier, such as branch, branches.

There are however numerous anomalies, such as man, {n. p.} men; goose, geese; cow, kine; ox, oxen; child, children; tooth, teeth; foot, feet; brother, brethren; louse, lice; mouse, mice; and also the change f to v like staff, staves [staffs]; beef, beeves; life, lives; sheaf, sheaves; thief, thieves; wife, wives; knife, knives.  

Some are invariable in number: news, deer, hose, sheep, swine, people.

Some lack the singular. 

Affairs, barbes, cates, bowels.

Potage, ashes, shambles.

Furmenty, dregs, bellows.

Dainties, scissors, entrals.

Shear, tongs.

Some lack the plural. First, those ending in -ness, such as godliness, goodness.

2. In -lity, such as agility, facility.

3. In -dice, such as cowardice.

4. Names of the arts, such as Logic, Rhetoric.

5. Of liquids, such as cider, milk; but we say waters and wines. {n. p.}

6. Of minerals, such as brass, copper.

7. Of herbs, such as parsley, sage.

8. Of crops, such as barley, wheat; but oat, bean, and fitch keep the plural.

9. Of spices, such as sugar, pepper; but nutmeg, fig raisin, almond have the plural.

10. Of regions, such as France, England.

11. Of rivers, such as Tweed, Humber.

12. Of months, such as January, February.

13. Of persons, such as Christopher, Margaret.

You should add to the above:

Apparel, bacon, balm, brain, bread, chaff, glass.

Bombast, butter, canvas, chalk, civet, grass.

Clay, cockle, darnel, dirt, draff, dross, dung, muck.

Phlegm, flesh, fodder, food, forage, froth, hay, luck.

Dust, wool, garlic, hell, glue, leather, grease, flax. {n. p.}

Hemp, lard, line, mortar, lucre, suet, wax.

Mud, marl, mirth, mustard, paradise, plate, lime.

Saffron, soot, tallow, tar, pitch, tinder, slime.

Tow, wood, corn, timber.

The most fruitful source of all adjectives is -less, to which substantives are joined, such as faithless, toothless, wifeless, horseless; that is, without faith, teeth, wife, horse.

Chap. 4.

On Adjectives.

Among the adjectives there is no difference in number; by virtue of singular and plural substantives, however, they are said to be singular and plural, such as sweet apple, sweet apples. But {B1} much, every and poetically each are singular; many and all are plural. Sundry and both are only plural. 

Comparison is possible with most of the adjectives.

Comparison is expressed in two ways: either by adding a syllable to the adjective or by placing a word before it.

The syllables are -er and -est. Adding -er to the positive adjective produces the comparative form; -est the superlative form, as in sweet, sweeter, sweetest, but old, older or elder, oldest, or eldest.

The second type of comparative happens by placing a word before the adjective. These words are more and most.

More added to the positive adjective produces the comparative form.

Instead, most is used for the superlative form, as in fair, more fair, most fair.

Adverbs in -ly, derived from the adjectives, are compared in the same way, {n. p.} as in honestly, more honestly, most honestly.

The following have irregular comparative forms: good, better, best; evil, or ill, worser, worst. Sing. much, more. Plur. many, more, most, little, lesser, lest.

However, we mostly use worse, and less, instead of the comparatives worser and lesser.  

Similarly, the adverbs derived from them admit the same comparative form. Instead of good and evil, however, we use the adverbs well and evilly.

Substantives expressing quality are formed from the adjectives, by means of apposition of the syllable -ness, such as good, goodness and adverbs in -ly, such as honest, honestly. In the adverbs derived from the adjectives in -ly, however, the last syllable is rarely repeated, that is daily, godly, and not dailily, godlily.

The article the too is counted among the adjectives {B2} – the Italian il, lo, or la and the French le or la – and the numerals, the nouns expressing cardinal numbers, are plural above one. 

These numerals can be simple, decimal, and composite.

Simple numerals are one, two or twaine, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

Decimal numerals: ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, {n. p.} eighty, ninety, hundred, thousand, million.

Composite numerals are eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen.

The nouns expressing the ordinals are singular. 

Among the simple ones: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth.

Among the decimal ones: tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, fortieth, fiftieth, sixtieth, seventieth, eightieth, ninetieth, hundredth, thousandth.

Among the composite ones: eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth.

Chap. 5.

On Pronouns.

Pronouns too are somewhat anomalous, as not only do they distinguish the number, but also the case.

Pronouns are primitive or derivative.

Primitive pronouns are demonstrative or relative.

Demonstrative pronouns are I, thou, he, she, this, that.

Relative pronouns: who, which, what, {B3} whose.

Derivative pronouns: my, mine, thy, thine, his, her, hers, our, ours, your, yours, their, theirs.

Demonstrative pronouns: Sing. Dir. I, Obl. me, Pl. Dir. we, Obl. us.

Sing. Dir. thou, Obl. thee, Pl. you or ye.

Sing. Dir. he or she, Obl. him, her, Pl. they, them.

Sing. this.

Pl. these.

Sing. that.

Pl. those.

Relative pronouns. Sing. Dir. who, Obl. whom, Pl. likewise.

Instead, which, what and whose do not vary: they are not derivative pronouns by nature, but adjectives, and so they keep their form in all cases.

Four of them I, thou, he, she, however, are considered substantives, the others are {n. p.} to be held as adjectives.

Chap. 6.

On Verbs.

Verbs express number varied for tense and person.

The formation of the tenses is unique and simple.

In each tense the plural forms are identical to the first singular person, except for the inflection of the verb am.

Generally, we use contractions in poetry.

Present tense: 1. hate. 2. hatest. 3. hateth. Pl. hate, hate, etc.

Contracted: 2. hates, 3. hates.  

The second and third persons are formed from the base-form, with the addition of -st and -th. {B4}

In contracted forms, there are only two different voices, and they are always parisyllabic; the second and the third persons are formed from the first with the addition of -s.

The present tense is generally expressed like this: with the present tense of the verb do and the present infinitive, such as I do love, thou dost love, etc.

The anomalies of this present tense are the following: have, hast, hath, Pl. have, have, etc.

Am, art, is, Pl. are, are, etc. or be; will, shall, may, can, must too never vary number or person in the singular, but their second singular persons are wilt, shalt, mayst, canst.   

Must does seem to be conjugated in this tense only and what it expresses cannot be explained by means of a periphrasis.

The first past tense: 1. hated. 2. hatest. 3. hated. Pl. hated, ed, ed. This tense is formed by adding -d to the base-form, if this ends {n. p.} with a vowel, but -ed, if it ends with a consonant. 

Since the second person differs from the others, it is formed from the first with the addition of -st.

A crasis is the contraction of the penultimate and last syllable into one, which happens in two ways. Firstly, by dropping e from the last syllable; a famous example of which is this: 

Not Philip’s son, who all the world subdu’d,
Achilles ne, in Hector’s blood imbru’d:
Nor Hercules who monsters fiercely tam’d,
And of the earth the terror great was nam’d.
Not all the worthiest out which ever liv’d,
With this our peer, were worthy be compar’d.

Secondly, by putting e back at the end, as in:

As for the nightingale wood music’s king:
It August was she daynde [deigned] not then to sing. {n. p.}

The contraction of certain verbs does indeed occur differently: not only by dropping e, but also by changing d into t, not differently from what the Greeks are generally used to doing, and finally by removing the last vowel of the diphthong (if there is one) in the one-to-last vowel, such as whipped, whipt; stripped, stript; dipped, dipt; fixed, fixt; wished, wisht.

But also in the following verbs: weep, sweep, keep, leap, creep, steep, feel, meet, weet, lose, beat, shoot And in those verbs which have an irregular form besides the simple and contracted ones (for instance, from the base-form smite, the simple form of the past tense is smited; the contracted smit; the anomalous smote; like bite, bited, bit, boote and write, writed, writ, wrote). We use this contraction far more frequently than the simple form or the anomalous one, and the anomalous more than the simple.

Simply anomalous verbs are those which do not form the past tense in conformity with the rule of the other ones, such as sit, sat; slay, slew; catch, {n. p.} caught; go, went; grow, grew; bid, bade; run, ran; throw, threw; begin, began; see, saw; give, gave; shine, shone; make, made; take, took; bring, brought; lead, led; read, read; feed, fed; come, came; leave, left; think, thought; fall, fell; draw, drew; shake, shook; hide, hid; teach, taught; know, knew; blow, blew; bind, bound; find, found; abide, abode; fight, fought; buy, bought; sell, sold; stand, stood; seek, sought; tell, told; work, wrought; hold, held; spread, spred; breed, bred; bleed, bled; eat, ate; rise, rose; owe, ought; have, had; do, did; am, was, and the plural – sometimes used in the singular too – were.

The following have a double anomaly: get, gat and got; drink, drank and dronk; steal, stale and stole; sink, sank and sonk; shrink, shrank and shronk; chide, chid and chod; spin, span and spun; strive, strave and strove; {n. p.} wink, wank and wonk; speak, spake and spoke; tear, tare and tore; shear, share and shore; bear, bare and bore; wear, ware and wore; tread, trade and trode; spring, sprang and sprong; ring, rang and rong; stick, stack and stuck; sting, stang and stung; break, brake and broke; drive, drave, and drove; swim, swam and swom; climb, clim and clome; ride, rid and rode; slide, slid and slode; sing, sang and song; stride, strid and strode; fly, flew and flow; win, wan and won. Instead, the past tense of these ones is not different from their base-form: set, put, shut, cast, cut, hurt, hit, spend, lend, rend, bend, send, but from the fact that they convert the final d of the base-form in t.

Can, could; will, would; shall, should; may, might are defective: apart from the present and past simple tenses, they lack the other ones. 

This tense can indeed be expressed in all other verbs through did, past simple form of do, and the present infinitive; {n. p.} except for the anomalous ones: am, have, do and other defective verbs. 

On the Second Past Tense.

We express the second past tense through a periphrasis consisting of the past participle and the present tense of the verb have, such as I have hated, thou hast hated, he hath hated; plur. we have hated, ye have hated, they have hated.

On the Third Past Tense.

We express the third past tense through the same participle, and the imperfect tense of the verb have, such as I had hated, thou hadst hated, he had hated; plur. we had hated, ye had hated, etc.

On the First Future Tense.

The first future tense corresponds to the base-form, with the person postponed or implied, such as hate thou, hate he; plur. hate we, hate ye, hate they.

On the Second Future Tense.

The second future tense is expressed syntactically with the infinitive and the present of the verb will or shall, such as {n. p.} I shall or will hate; thou shalt or wilt hate; he shall or will hate; plur. we shall or will hate etc.

On Infinitives.

The present infinitive corresponds to the base-form, such as to hate; but am gives be.

The ‘second past’ infinitive consists of the voice have and the perfect participle, such as to have hated.

The ‘third perfect’ infinitive is formed by the past simple form had and the same participle, such as to had hated.

On Participles.

The present participle is formed from the base-form with the addition of -ing, such as hate, hating.

The perfect participle corresponds to the imperfect tense, and in sing, ring, spring, swing, swim, climb, win, sting it corresponds to the second anomalous form of the imperfect tense.

As for those verbs with the second contraction, this participle is formed from the contracted form {n. p.} with the addition of the letter -n, such as bit, bitten; smit, smitten; writ, written; thus they are derived from the present tense, such as sit, sitten; sley, slain; grow, grown; bid, bidden; chide, chidden; shake, shaken; strive, striven; lie, lyen [lain]; throw, thrown; begin, begun; see, seen; give, given; take, taken; fall, fallen; draw, drawn; hide, hidden; know, known; blow, blown; abide, abidden; rise, risen; do, done; drive, driven; eat, eaten; but come, come and run, run.

The following verbs derive it instead from the second anomalous form of the imperfect tense, such as got, gotten; spoke, spoken; drunk, drunken; broke, broken; trode, trodden; wonke, wonken; sunk, sunken; shrunk, shrunken; stole, stolen; swore, sworne [sworn]; tore, torn; shore, shorn; bore, borne; wore, worn; rid, ridden; stuck, stucken; slide, slidden; flow, flown and mow, mown; sow, sown; {n. p.} the past participle of am is been.

Like participles, several other substantives are derived from verbs. Two types derive from the base-form. The first differs from it in nothing, such as hate; the substantive has the same meaning of the verb, for example the verb fear means ‘to be afraid of’, and the substantive means ‘dread’; the same happens with love, help, drink and many others. The second type of substantives deriving from the base-form add the letter r to it, and the meaning refers to the related actor, such as a love, lover; help, helper; write, writer. Lastly, there are those substantives formed entirely from the base-form. This is what happens to deverbatives, apart from the defective ones, and the anomalous verb am.  

On Passive Verbs.

Passive verbs, just like in French, Italian, and Spanish, admit no fixed inflection, but whatever it is it consists of the perfect participle and the verb am for all tenses and persons; for the present: I am hated, thou art hated, he is hated; {n. p.} plur. we are hated, ye are hated, they are etc.

The first perfect: I was hated, thou wast hated, he was hated; pl. we were hated, ye were hated, they were hated.

The second perfect: I have been hated, thou hast been hated, he hath been hated, plur. we have been hated, ye have been hated, they have been hated.

The third perfect: I had been hated, thou hadst been hated, he had been hated; plur. we had been hated, ye had been hated, they had been hated.

The first future tense: Be thou hated, be he hated; plur. be we hated, be ye hated, be they hated.

The second future tense: I shall or will be hated, thou shalt or wilt be hated, he shall or will be hated; plur. we shall or will be hated, ye shall or will be hated, they shall or will be hated.

Present Infinitive: to be hated. {C1}

Past Infinitive: to have been hated.

Pluperfect Infinitive: to had been hated.

Impersonal verbs are formed by placing it in front of the third singular persons, such as it be seemeth, it is said.

Chap. 7.

On Adverbs.

The adverb is what is added to other words, such as well done.

There are several adverbs of quality in -ly derived from adjectives, such as purely, soberly; indeed, there are almost as many adjectives as adverbs in -ly.

Native adverbs are straight, soon, now, scarce, or scarcely, so, yes, no, not, much, rather, where, whether, when, here, hither, oft, often, well, then, never, within, together, almost, as, hence, whence, always, ever, evermore, how, up, down, already, yet, yonder, still, {n. p.} seldom, little, enough, otherwise, except, and the like.

Among these adverbs, those which are commonly called prepositions are also included: such as of, to, or unto, from or fro, before, against, at, about, without, between, beneath, besides, behind, by, through, nigh, after, beyond, until, with, towards, in, on, upon, under, aloft, above, and the like.

And interjections too, such as alas, alack, oh, woe.

Chap. 8.

On Conjunctions.

Copulative: such as, and, also, neither, nor.

Connective: such as, if, unless, except, else.

Discretive: such as, but, notwithstanding, {C2} nevertheless, although, besides.

Disjunctive: such as, either, or, whether, otherwise.

Causal: such as, for, because, that.

Rational: such as, therefore, wherefore.

The end of etymology. {n. p.}

Chap. 1.

On Syntax.

The explanation of etymology has been proposed above. It is followed by syntax. Syntax is the part of grammar which considers the order of the parts of speech in a sentence. 

On the apostrophe.

The apostrophe is the sign of the elision of the last vowel of a word, when the following one begins with another vowel. However, this does not occur always: in poetry it is only found when there are exceeding syllables. The sign of the apostrophe is like the apex ’, such as 

What be the joys, for which t’enjoy,
they went to the pains? Echo. Pains? {C3}

Chap. 2.

On the Syntax of Nouns.

In a sentence, the adjective comes before the substantive, such as: a yoked swine is a terrible beast. Here, yoked, and terrible precede swine, and beast. But the opposite sometimes occurs in poetry. For example:

He bought a knife, a stone, a horn,

for shoe-horn had he none:

nor penknife good, or whetstone smooth

to grind his knife thereon.

Here good follows penknife, and smooth whetstone.

However, in a statement on the quality of the subject, as is obvious, the parts of speech can be placed like this: This knife is sharp.

Among the adjectives, there is a clear distinction {n. p.} between one and a; and it occurs at many levels.

The first is that one denotes a somewhat certain unity and is more emphatic. For example: one day doth store grief enough for the morrow.

The second is that one is more often used as a substantive, differently from a. For example: one, two, three, four, five; and not a, two, three, four, five.

Then straight one fetched the prisoner behung with robes about.

But not then straight a fetched the prisoner, etc. Except for man, or in case you should want to express some other substantive.

We use an instead of a when a vowel follows. For example: an ox, an ass.

The distinction between none and no is that none is always characterized by the ellipsis of the substantive. For example:

For no man dreads but he that cannot shift. {C4}
And none serves God but only tongue-tied men.

Although all is plural by nature, however we see that it also used in singular cases, firstly with those terms which lack the plural. For example: all flesh is grass.

Secondly, to indicate the whole, with the derivative pronoun or the adjective the, or a and an in the middle. For example: all this day, all their light, all my strength, all the time, all an apple, all a book.

Thirdly, when used collectively: such as in Gascoigne’s Complaint of Philomela:  

All ill that may be thought,
All mischief under skies
Was piety compared to that
Which Tereus did devise.

Many too takes a singular subject, with a or an in the middle, as in:

Full many a wound is given
Between them twain, with leaden lomps.
And many a stroke in vain: {n. p.}
And on their ribs full thick it thomps.

Chap. 3.

On the Syntax of Pronouns.

Pronominal adjectives are used variously in syntax; the following six – my, thy, her, our, your, their – are indeed always used with substantives, in the same part of the sentence; but mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, and the interrogative who differ from the former only in this: that is, they are always used as substantives, or at least they are separated from them in the sentence.  

The others, like the relative who, which, what, whose, this, and that, can be used in both ways.

In addition, it must be known that the pronouns my, thy, his, her, our, your, and their are sometimes compounded with the nominal affix -self, like myself, thyself, {n. p.} his self, herself: ourselves, yourselves, and their selves. For speaking habit more than for the truth, we say himself and themselves, but they are generally used after their primitives, such as I myself, thou thyself, he himself, and this expression is more emphatic than if you simply said I, thou, he, etc.

Chap. 4.

On the Syntax of Adverbs, with Nouns.

These three – of, to, from, or fro – almost express case distinctions: Of takes the genitive, to the dative, and for more emphasis we use unto; from or fro the ablative, such as regis regum, of a king, of kings; regi regibus, to a king, to kings; rege regibus, from a king, or from kings. We use them also as the Latin adverbs ad, de, ut: ad regem, de rege, a rege; to a king, of a king, from a king.

To is also placed before the infinitive, such as to {n. p.} fear, to be feared.

Chap. 5.

On the Syntax of Conjunctions, with Verbs.

We rarely use be in the present, and almost always after the conjunction that, either expressed or implied. For example: If that perfect constancy be the child of chance, let wisdom be counted the root of wickedness

Similarly, locutions like suppose all men be honest and imagine pleasure be a companion of virtue do not seem to agree with this rule. However, truth is always and everywhere the same: in these and other similar examples there is ellipsis of the conjunction that, or of the preposition to; if that is missing, then the verb be is present tense according to the rule; if to is missing, then be is infinitive and the sentence can be expanded: suppose that all men be honest and imagine that pleasure be a companion of virtue. Or suppose all men be honest, and pleasure to be a companion of virtue. {n. p.} This kind of sentences is actually spoilt by a clumsy and vulgar solecism: I be negligent, thou be honest.

The same must be said of were in the singular imperfect form of the verb am.

These are the aspects on which I have thought it was appropriate to focus in the first place since the moment – a long time ago – when I started to think upon these topics; as regards them, if there is something for which I could be useful to you –however limitedly – I will rejoice with all my heart. On the contrary, which I fear the most, may these considerations of ours not offend anyone, and in this regard, you too may be able to test yourself.  

The end.

Live and thrive, if you have learnt anything better than these precepts,
Frankly impart them to me; otherwise, use these with me. {n. p.}

Small dictionary of the English terms, which occur here and there in this little book.