The Works of Samuel Johnson in Nine Volumes | Page 6

variation but in the degrees of comparison, and our verbs are
conjugated by auxiliary words, and are only changed in the preter tense.
To our language may be, with great justness, applied the observation of
Quintilian, that speech was not formed by an analogy sent from heaven.
It did not descend to us in a state of uniformity and perfection, but was
produced by necessity, and enlarged by accident, and is, therefore,
composed of dissimilar parts, thrown together by negligence, by
affectation, by learning or by ignorance.
Our inflections, therefore, are by no means constant, but admit of
numberless irregularities, which in this Dictionary will be diligently
noted. Thus fox makes in the plural foxes, but ox makes oxen. Sheep is
the same in both numbers. Adjectives are sometimes compared by
changing the last syllable, as _proud, prouder, proudest_; and
sometimes by particles prefixed, as _ambitious, more_ ambitious, most
ambitious. The forms of our verbs are subject to great variety; some
end their preter tense in ed, as I love, I loved, I have _loved_; which

may be called the regular form, and is followed by most of our verbs of
southern original. But many depart from this rule, without agreeing in
any other, as I shake, I shook, I have shaken or shook, as it is
sometimes written in poetry; I make, I made, I have _made_; I bring, I
_brought_; I wring, I _wrung_; and many others, which, as they cannot
be reduced to rules, must be learned from the dictionary rather than the
grammar.
The verbs are likewise to be distinguished according to their qualities,
as actives from neuters; the neglect of which has already introduced
some barbarities in our conversation, which, if not obviated by just
animadversions, may in time creep into our writings.
Thus, my Lord, will our language be laid down, distinct in its minutest
subdivisions, and resolved into its elemental principles. And who upon
this survey can forbear to wish, that these fundamental atoms of our
speech might obtain the firmness and immutability of the primogenial
and constituent particles of matter, that they might retain their
substance while they alter their appearance, and be varied and
compounded, yet not destroyed?
But this is a privilege which words are scarcely to expect: for, like their
author, when they are not gaining strength, they are generally losing it.
Though art may sometimes prolong their duration, it will rarely give
them perpetuity; and their changes will be almost always informing us,
that language is the work of man, of a being from whom permanence
and stability cannot be derived.
Words having been hitherto considered as separate and unconnected,
are now to be likewise examined as they are ranged in their various
relations to others by the rules of syntax or construction, to which I do
not know that any regard has been yet shown in English dictionaries,
and in which the grammarians can give little assistance. The syntax of
this language is too inconstant to be reduced to rules, and can be only
learned by the distinct consideration of particular words as they are
used by the best authors. Thus, we say, according to the present modes
of speech, The soldier died of his wounds, and the sailor perished with
hunger; and every man acquainted with our language would be

offended with a change of these particles, which yet seem originally
assigned by chance, there being no reason to be drawn from grammar
why a man may not, with equal propriety, be said to die with a wound
or perish of hunger.
Our syntax, therefore, is not to be taught by general rules, but by
special precedents; and in examining whether Addison has been with
justice accused of a solecism in this passage,
The poor inhabitant-- Starves in the midst of nature's bounty curst, And
in the loaden vineyard _dies for thirst_--.
it is not in our power to have recourse to any established laws of speech;
but we must remark how the writers of former ages have used the same
word, and consider whether he can be acquitted of impropriety, upon
the testimony of Davies, given in his favour by a similar passage:
She loaths the wat'ry glass wherein she gaz'd, And shuns it still,
although for thirst she dye.
When the construction of a word is explained, it is necessary to pursue
it through its train of phraseology, through those forms where it is used
in a manner peculiar to our language, or in senses not to be comprised
in the general explanations; as from the verb make arise these phrases,
to make love, to make an end, to _make way_; as, he made way for his
followers, the ship made way before the wind; to make a bed, to make
merry, to make a mock,