Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 February 1887 — EDUCATIONAL. [ARTICLE]

EDUCATIONAL.

A short Talk on English Grammar. That English Grammar is very frequently mis-taught is too true to be suect'SsluUy contradicted. The results are. in too many cases, only too apparent. That this is so is true 1 , but why it is so, is, perhaps, not ao easily explained, some objections that lead to this result 1 shall try to consider. First. Grammar as a study, or technical graChuiar, asetris sometimes called, is begun by pupils not at all sufficiently advanced to comprehend the same. Before a child can read fluently and intelligently in the fourth reader; before he knows the meaning of many words of more than two or three syllables; before he is capable of comprehending the text, he is put into a grammar class, where he is expected to learn the rulerthat govern our best writers and speakers. As w r ell try to put a barrel of water into a gallon cup, for in this one would be as successful as to put intelligent instruction in to the mind of the pupil unprepared for this instruction. Second. I have always been of the opinion that too much parsing and anlyzing aro done while teaching grammar. He who is able to par.*e words readily, to analyze fluently, both correctly, is not necessarily well versed in gramiiiar. Let me illustrate by the following sentences. “'A says to B, wait for me;” “A says to B, wait on me.” The pupil will analyze both sen-. tenees .alike, he will parse the words in The one the same as the words in the. other sentence, both of which are cor- 1 rect. Now if the teachee asks for the difference of meaning between the two sentences, as likely as not the pupil will say, there is no difference. Is there a difference? How are wo to determine? I If there Is a difference It must be caused by the prepositions on and for, as ail the other words are alike aud in the same order. Now what do these prepositions mean? For has eight different meanings, on has fourteen. Is it not apparent that the untutored, the undeveloped mind is not capable of discriminating between so many differences of distinction? Ar.d if he cannot discriminate he is not taught, he i 3 not made to know. Not being made to know, to comprehend, he cannot derive any benefit from the study. Then why study ? But to the sentenees. If B is in advance of A and A wishes to overtake B, but caunot uuless B waits for A, A says, wait ior (or on?) me. Man^'people say “wait on me,’ but this is incorrect. if the colored servant is standing idle in tho dining room and you are sitting at the table waiting, will you say to the servant,- “wait for me?” Certainly not. You will say “wait on me,” meaning serve me. Now if these meanings be applied* to the above sentences they will reveal their true meaning very clearly and iyAgain, I say, “Cicero wrote poems,” and “Cicero has written orations,” Had I said. “Cicero has written ppoms’* and “Cicero wrote oratiehsy”, I would have made a remarkable blunder. Why ? The pupil of the above described capacity cannot tell why? He "knows nothing of tho meaning tho different tenses convey, though ho may be able to conjugate the verb write, correctly. But ot what benefit is this knowledge of conjugation to him if he cannot apply it? No more than the miser’s gold is to the miser. I say, “Cicero wrote ppems,” using tho simple past tense, because the poems of Cicero aro no longer in existence*. I say, “Cicero lias written orations,” using the perfect tense, because the orations are still in existence. Many great meu died in the eighteenth century.” ‘ ‘Many great men have died! in the niuetoeuth ceutury” arc correct sentences, A changing of the tense would make them incorrect.—Why? The reason, if closely inspected, will become appa”ent. The eighteenth century is no longer a part of the pres, ent, and, hence, the simple past tense must be used; the nineteenth century is a part es the present, and, therefore, the perfect tense must'bo‘ used. From the above it will be seen that, •to understand and apply grammar correctly, more than a knowledge of parsing and analyzing is necessary.

In another. senteneo. ‘‘The. steak was fried rare," 1 have heard persons .dispose of rare as an adverb, saying it modified fried.. If such persons would stop to think what meaning the sentence conveyed, such errors could not - “The steak was fried rare" menus, that the steak was rare after being fried, ami the word rare is an adjective andlif s nothing U> do with" the word fried. Slany errors could • rU bided and much more advnn’cmcht made if n little more thinking were done. Grammar, when considered both rpracticaliy and philosophically, -becomes a very interesting and profitable ■ studyj but when ccmsidefeaT ffigclrairl-t

cally, it becomes dry, Uninteresting, diffl'cull. Unprofitable. In conclusion I qnote two definitions from, perhaps, the best, the most logical. the most learned grammarian this country has produced. “English grammar teaches how to speak and write the English language correctly. This is the practical view,— S. Kerl. “It is a thorough analysis, or anatomy, of the language, completely laying Open its nature in general principles, and especially teaching those properties in respect to whieh we are liable t<> misuse it, or at least those on which its right construction depends. This is the philosophical view.”—ld.

F. W. REUBELT.