in ly. From adjectives ending in le, adverbs are formed by omitting the final e and adding y. Thus from able, is formed ably, from simple, simply, &c. These may be regarded as contracted and softened forms, for the more uncouth words, ablely, simplely, &c. (12) When the adjective ends in e, the e is often omitted; as, due, duly, true, truly. Here the e is preceded by a vowel. When it is preceded by a consonant, it is generally retained; as, sole, solely, servile, servilely, &c., but whole, makes wholly. When the adjective ends in 77, one 7 is omitted in the adverb; as, full, fully, &c. But these are matters of spelling rather than of grammar.

EXERCISES.-Give examples of adverbs formed from adjectives. Adjectives from nouns.

(13) We may here notice that many words recognised as adverbs, are compounded of two or more words, which, separately taken, form some one of the species of modifications already treated. We have examples in Therefore for this; Where-with with which; In-deed, Never-the-less never in the less degree, degree or some such word being implied. In therefore and wherefore, THING, or some such noun is also implied.

(14) Many words compounded with the abbreviated preposition ɑ have been classed by the grammarians among the adverbs; such as, abed, aloft, ashore, aground, &c. These words, we think, are seldom, if ever, used as adverbs. If we do not analyze them as noun and preposition modifications, but treat them as single words, they are not adverbs, but adjectives employed, generally, as complementary of neuter verbs.* (15) We may illustrate this by the example, He lies abed.

* All words like these which modify verbs have been thrown by the grammarians into the class of adverbs, because they have not adverted to the fact that many verbs are modified by adjectives, but consider all single words with the exception of objective nouns as adverbs when they are employed to modify verbs. It will be seen from what we have already said that this view cannot be maintained; that on the contrary there are several verbs which rarely admit an adverbial modification, but freely take a complementary adjective. The verb to be is an example, and most verbs which express the state or posture of the subject; as, to stand, to lie, to sit, &c.

in le, and give examples. (12) Repeat remarks as to those formed from adjectives ending in e preceded by a vowel, and in e preceded by a consonant. Give the examples.

(13) Repeat what is said of adverbs formed of words which separately taken constitute one of the modifications already considered. Illustrate by examples.

(14) What is said of certain words formed with the preposition a? Give examples (15) Illustrate the assertion that these compounds are not adverbs, using for this purpose as an example, He lies abed.

Here we must either say that abed is equivalent to on bed—noun and preposition modification—or that it is an adjective compounded of these words. Surely abed, taken as a single word, is as much an adjective, when we say, He lies abed, or He is abed, as flat is an adjective, when we say, He lies flat, or The roof is flat. The same reasoning will apply to asleep, aloft, ashore, &c., in the propositions He is asleep, or He lies asleep; The ship is ashore, or lies ashore; The bird rises aloft, or sings aloft, &c.

(16) Many adjectives are employed in our language adverbiallygenerally as adverbs of manner-some noun being suppressed which the mind of the hearer is expected to supply. We may give as examples of adjectives often so employed the words better, best, worse, worst; as, He acted better, best, worse, worst-expressions equivalent to He acted in a better manner, in the best manner, &c. (17) The employment of adjectives as adverbs is more common in some languages than it is in ours. In German, for instance, "all adjectives are employed as adverbs of manner, without assuming any distinctive termination like the English ly." (Becker's Germ. Gram. for the English, p. 162, Frank. 1845.)

(18) It often happens that an adjective preceded by a preposition is used adverbially. Examples: In vain―In a vain manner; In short In a short way, or manner; In general—In a general way, or manner. In some cases the ellipsis cannot be so easily supplied. For example, at least, at most, at all, &c. In such expressions a whole proposition is sometimes left to be supplied by the hearer or reader; and what proposition, or what words, we must ascertain in each particular case from the connection of the discourse. The easiest (though certainly not the most satisfactory) way of treating such abbreviated expressions is to call them, as the grammarians generally have done, adverbial phrases.

EXERCISES.-Propositions containing what are called adverbial phrases; always supply the noun in analysis.

(19) It may be observed, once for all, that it is a lazy and unphilosophical practice to treat every word, which expresses a circumstance modifying the predicate of a proposition, and which happens to be somewhat difficult to analyze fully and correctly, as an adverb, or, if more than one word, as an adverbial phrase. (20) The proper, the only

(16) What is said of adjectives employed in our language as adverbs of manner? Illustrate by examples. (17) What is said of the practice in other languages of employing the unchanged adjective as an adverb?

(18) Repeat what is said of (the so-called) adverbial phrases, illustrating by examples. (19) Describe a practice characterized as lazy and unphilosophical (20) What is repre

rational method of analysis, is to treat as an adverb no expression which can be readily brought under any of the other classes of modi fications. (21) Adverbs are only contracted or abbreviated forms equivalent to other modifications, and every one, in order to show that he thoroughly understands the analysis of language, must be able to exhibit in every case the expression to which the adverb is equivalent, or which it represents. (22) To call any expression an adverb, or an adverbial phrase, which adınits of being directly brought under one of the other forms of modification, is therefore wholly unwarrantable and improper.

(23) In consistency with these remarks we cannot admit that such words as yesterday, to-day, to-night, to-morrow, belong to the class of adverbs. Yesterday is a compound noun formed by the union of an adjective, now obsolete (save in composition), with the noun day. The same observation applies to the expressions to-day, to-night, tomorrow. Whatever may have given origin to the use of the particle to in this manner before the words day, night, &c., this particle, as here used, is now manifestly equivalent to the determinative this. Compare, I will go to-day, and I will go this week. Such expressions we analyze as nouns-nouns performing the function of the accusative of time. (See § 84.)

(24) There are several words commonly classed among the adverbs which do not come, as it seems to us, within any definition which has been given of this species of words. One of these is the negative particle NOT. This can scarcely, with propriety, be called a modifying word. Whether we consider it as affecting, exclusively, the assertive force of the verb, or as affecting the predicate (including the part of the predicate contained in the verb), it cannot, in strict propriety of language, be said to modify that which it serves rather completely to reverse or exclude. We prefer to call it by a name peculiar to itself, the negative particle.

NOTE.-It is a question among logicians, whether the negative particle in all cases affects the copula? whether, consequently, we are to admit two forms of the copula, viz., the affirmative form, employed in what are called affirmative propositions, and the negative form in negative propositions? or,

gented as the proper and rational method of analysis? (21) What are adverbs here said to be, and what should we be able to exhibit in analysis when an adverb occurs? (22) What mode of analysis is said to be unwarrantable and improper?

(23) Enumerate some forms of expression commonly called adverbs of time, and give the reasons for excluding them from this class.

(24) Repeat the substance of what is said in reference to the word NOT.

whether the negative particle may not, at least in some cases, be considered as affecting the predicate? Now, if we refer to what most of the followers of Aristotle (though not Aristotle himself) have considered as the primary form of propositions, and to which they attempt to reduce all propositions, that is, those which have some tense of the verb to be, for their assertive word, accompanied by a complementary adjective, we agree with those who maintain that the negative always affects the verb is, which the logicians have hitherto regarded (we think, improperly) as the naked copula, and that it never affects the adjective alone which they have recognised as forming the complete predicate. But when we distinguish (as we have felt compelled by the results of the investigation described in another part of this treatise to do) in the verb to be, as in other verbs, the predicate part of the word from the indication of assertion, it may probably lead to an important modification of the manner in which logicians commonly present this subject. Though in such a proposition as The steward is NOT faithful, the negative not cannot be regarded with propriety, we believe, as affecting only the adjective faithful, yet it may be that it affects, not the assertive force of the verb is, but that part of the predicate contained in this verb. We are inclined to think, that it is exactly this which the negative in all cases affects; and if it affects what we have recognised as the leading part of the predicate, it really, through this, affects the entire predicate, though not directly or cxclusively that which logicians have generally regarded as the predicate of propositions of this form. Thus, in the proposition, The steward is not faithful, though we agree with those who deny that it is logically correct to say, that NOT faithful is asserted of the steward, yet we think may not be incorrect to say, that NOT BEING faithful is asserted of him.

it

It will be seen that we suspect both parties to this question-those who regard the negative as affecting what they call the predicate, and those who regard it as affecting the copula alone-to be in error; and that they have been led into error by adopting what we cannot but consider an incorrect analysis of propositions. In opposition to both, we expect that it will be found that the negative affects the real predicate-the whole predicate, according to our analysis, which finds in propositions of the above form the leading part of the predicate in what has been hitherto considered the mere copula.

We do not, however, feel prepared to assert any thing very positively on this point. Our examination of the bearing of the views we have adopted in reference to the copula, on the distinction between the affirmative and negative proposition, has not been sufficiently extensive and exact to satisfy our own mind completely, or entitle us to speak more decidedly on this subject. We leave the matter to the care of the logicians. If our analysis of propositions shall be found correct, and should be adopted, we think it must lead to some modification-we hope to a simplification-of the treatment of negative propositions.

(25) The words YES and NO are commonly, but we think very improperly, classed with the adverbs. These words are not modifying words; they are never applied either to verb or adjective for this purpose. Neither do they belong to any class of words hitherto examined by us. (26) Each of them is, in fact, equivalent to a whole proposition. YES, employed in answer to an interrogative proposition, is equivalent to that proposition asserted affirmatively; and No employed in the same way is equivalent to the interrogative proposition asserted negatively. For example, Is your brother at home? Ans. YES, equivalent to My brother is at home; Ans. No, equivalent to My brother is NOT at home. We may distinguish these two words by calling them THE RESPONSIVE PARTICLES.*

*

(27) Surely, certainly, assuredly, &c., are sometimes employed in answer to a question. These may be regarded as elliptical expressions, standing for propositions of which the suppressed parts are to be supplied from the preceding discourse. For example, Will you oblige me by asking that favor for me from your friend? Answer, Certainly, equivalent to I will certainly oblige you by doing so, or I will certainly do so.

(28) When certainly, surely, &c., occur as answers to a question, in attempting an analysis, we must first supply the words suppressed, and then their function in the completed proposition will appear manifest. (29) But when we meet with yes and no, we have simply to call them responsive particles, or signs of assent and denial. Since they are equivalent to whole propositions, they do not come within the range of grammatical analysis. Whenever a judgment of the mind is expressed by a single simple sign, as in this case, there is no room for the introduction of analysis. The grammarian's business is primarily with the proposition (which has been very properly called the "unit of speech," as judgment is the unit of thought; see N. Brit. Rev., No. 27, art. 2), and with this only when it consists of separable parts. If propositions were not made up of separable signs, grammar, as we have already said, would be a very different thing from what it is.

*These remarks do not apply to the adjective No.

(25) Is it proper to class YES and NO with the adverbs? Are they modifying words? (26) What is each of these words in fact equivalent to? Illustrate this fact by examples. (27) Repeat what is said in reference to the words surely, certainly, etc.

(23) How are we to act when these words occur in analysis? (29) How when yes and no occur?