of that term. It is true they are "members," that is, elements, of any sentence where they are found; but the same is true of all other words except interjections. Certain Latin demonstrative definitive adjectives are sometimes best translated by the "article" the; and the Latins doubtless frequently used such demonstratives with precisely the same force we use the. The fact is the is demonstrative in its character and use, analogous to this or that, and has no intimate relation with an, the "indefinite article," which is derived from the Saxon numeral an, signifying one, and is contracted to a before consonant elements.

It is used, according to circumstances, with the same force of meaning as some of the other indefinite limiting adjectives; as any, also one, when the latter is not a cardinal numeral.

The term article is also derived from the Greek loov, (arthron,) whence artus, and means the same thing. The Greeks used this term to denote the same class of words, meaning the same as the, and certain inflections of these words with nearly the force of an; but they also used the same words for the demonstratives above named. And though they called the former và äg0qa (ta arthra,) that is, articles, yet there is no evidence that they made them a separate part of speech, which is the point in question. Indeed they made them agree in inflection, like other adjectives, with the nouns to which they belong; e. g., ta above. The etymology shows that the custom of calling these words articles is of early origin; but I confess myself unable to see any better reason for the Greeks and Romans to call them so, than there seems to be for us to continue the practice. The grammatical use of the term particle has the same vague signification. If I were asked to suggest a better nomenclature, I should not call the and an "articles" at all. I should say that instead of their being so nearly related as brothers or sisters, they are merely cousins, as it were; both being definitives, but the former is a demonstrative, while the latter is an indefinite, or indeterminate, definitive (or limiting,) adjective. Or, if there should seem to be here a contradiction of terms, I suggest the name unspecifying definitive adjective for the world-renowned "indefinite article." But only one of the recent grammars so far as I have examined, claims for the article the dignity of a separate part of speech. For the love of sound learning may it be the last!

Clark's grammar adds to the eight parts another class, viz.: "Words of Euphony;" which are really not another part of speech, but merely words of some of these eight classes, used mostly for the sake of euphony in certain constructions. If however the author insists upon his classification, I would suggest that the rather awkward name, or phrase, of "Words of Euphony" might be contracted to Euphonics ; and the effect might be still more euphonic. Others call the participle a separate part of speech, but they might as well call the infinitive another. I have seen one grammer that makes eleven parts of speech. Indeed the number of parts of speech, instead of being increased, might be reduced to six-classing the noun and pronoun under the general head of substantive, which they are; and the preposition and conjunction under the general head of connectives.

But grammars differ most and are chiefly defective, in the subordinate classifications, and their nomenclature, of some of the parts of speech. I propose to examine very briefly some of these in their order. “Under the head of common nouns are commonly reckoned collective, abstract, verbal" and material nouns.

And the abstract is defined to be "the name of a property or quality considered apart from the object to which it belongs;" which is all right so far as it goes. And the verbal is defined to be "the participle used as a noun." But the infinitive is also frequently used in the same way. S. S. Greene says in general that “the infinitive is a kind of verbal noun.' So then there are at least two kinds of verbal nouns. But there is a third kind, very numerous, derived from verbs; such as call, play, walk, run, rest, sleep, life; also many ending in ion, ment, ure; all of which are frequently modified by adverbial elements denoting the various relations of time, place, &c.; and which elements cannot be disposed of properly, either in parsing or analyzing, without considering the nouns they modify as verbal. This point is too well understood by all who make any pretension to thoroughness, to need discussion. And again, has it never occurred to the reader that all these three classes of verbals nouns are abstract, in their nature and use?- that is, verbal abstract;-just as much so as abstract nouns derived from adjectives. Indeed, abstract is the general, and adjective and verbal are the specific terms.

It may be objected by some that this, if correct, is more philosophical than practical; that not one scholar in ten can ever understand it. But no thorough knowledge of analysis of sentences can be acquired

without this subject is understood. Take a single illustration in the sentence, "We had a pleasant walk into the county yesterday." I venture to say that not one grammar scholar in a hundred, unaided, can analyze that sentence I mean right, of course. And the books will not show him how. The teacher must (?); or he must dig it out himself. But, you see, that sentence is too "philosophical,' not "practical!" The point of difficulty lies in the proper disposal of the adjunct "into the country," which is an adverbial element denoting place whither, modifying "walk," which is a verbal noun of the third class named above. I have chosen a simple case. Do English grammarians generally present this subject in this light? What is wanted is to bring these principles into prominent notice in the grammar books. Do not put them into remarks in fine print, or marginal notes.

Grammarians seem to aim at simplicity, rather than correctness, in the classification of pronouns. I question whether simplicity is ever attained before correctness is arrived at. Many divide pronouns into three classes, personal, relative and interrogative; but explain something about pronominal adjectives in remarks in fine print, or marginal notes; all for simplicity's sake, I suppose. But in fact none of these are general classes, but subordinate divisions under other general heads. Thus, pronouns are properly divided in two general classes, substantive and adjective. Substantive pronouns are divided into three classes, personal, possessive and relative; and adjective pronouns into five classes, relative, possessive, demonstrative, distributive and indefinite.

The personal pronouns in most grammars are improperly declined, by giving a double form in the possessive case in some persons and numbers. The words hers, ours, yours, theirs, are never possessive case of personal pronouns. The reasons why are too many and obvious to require insertion here. Though if any one has any good reasons why he thinks they are, I should like to have them presented. Grammarians do not seem to know what to do with these four words, hers, ours, yours, theirs, and sometimes the four, mine, thine, his, its, when these are used in the same way as the former. Some call them possessive case of personal pronouns; others call them possessive pronouns. How is the scholar to decide?

"When doctors disagree,
Disciples then are free."

But that does not help the matter any for the pupil. The last four may be either the one or the other, according to their use. All these principles I have advanced, are according to Webster; but not all of them,— I am sorry to say, according to Webster expurgated, or mutilated revised.

Among the list of ten grammars on my table before me, I find only one Clark's, which ventures to decline the second person of the personal pronoun in the common style. It is as follows in the first three cases:

In the sentence, "You know that you are Brutus that speak this," you is singular because Brutus is. Although you was originally only plural, it has long since been used in the common style for the singular also. The people want it, will have it, and do use it, in the singular number, in spite of the prejudices or fickleness of grammarians. And I should think that authors of grammars, model (?) text books for schools, would begin to take the hint before another century has elapsed, that custom has made this a law. By the rule for agreement of the verb with its subject, and the relative with its antecedent, know, are and speak are all singular; so of all other forms of verbs when they agree with the singular subject you. They are now to be regarded merely as duplicate forms of the corresponding plurals. Why do not authors of grammars modify declension and conjugation in these respects to conform to the prevailing customs of the times?

Quackenbos includes as with the relative pronouns! But this is on a par with calling the article a separate part of speech. It seems to me to argue a very superficial knowledge of relative pronouns and conjunctions. If there were nothing else that would condemn a book, it should be these two faults. There is no chance for a difference of opinion after a full investigation of this whole subject. As is an adverbial subordinate conjunction in every place where Q. would call it a relative. In every such case the ellipsis of an adverbial clause is to be supplied.

The interesting subject of the pronoun and adjective will be resumed in the next number.

J. M. R.

EDUCATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

SALARIES IN CHICAGO.

At a recent meeting of the Board of Education, the subject of a revision of salaries paid to teachers was referred to a special committee for investigation. After a careful and patient examination of the subject, not only in reference to the system of schools in the city but also in its general bearing, the committee, through their chairman, J. F. Ballantyne, Esq., presented a report from which we are glad to make a few

extracts:

INTRODUCTION.

"After careful investigation, your committee find that considerable dissatisfaction exists among both male and female teachers with the present salaries; that there is a general idea prevalent in the community that they are inadequate; and that this impression has been shared to no small extent by former members of this Board, but that, in consequence of the lack of funds, they were prevented from increasing them. It has also been found that, with regard to female teachers, a large proportion of them do not receive sufficient compensation for their services to meet their necessary expenses, and that in consequence thereof they are under obligations to their friends and relatives for assistance, or have to incur debts which embarrass and unfit them for a proper discharge of their duties. With regard to the male teachers of the city, it has also been found that, in cases where families have to be supported from the salaries received, there is great difficulty in making "both ends meet," and some of them, in order to procure sufficient means to meet reasonable demands, have to engage in occupations during their leisure hours and vacations wholly foreign to their profession, and in some respects not altogether consistent with their duties."

For the guidance of the Board, the committee prepared and presented a table showing the salaries paid to teachers in several of the prominent cities:

"New York.-Salaries of Principals of Boys' Grammar Schools, $2,250; salaries of Vice-Principals of Boys' Grammar Schools, $1,800; salaries of First Assistants of Boys's Grammar Schools, $1,400; salaries of Second Assistants of Boys' Grammar Schools, $1,200; salaries of Third Assistants of Boys' Grammar Schools, $1,000; salaries of female Assistants of Boys' Grammar Schools, $400 to $800; salaries of Principals of Girls' Grammar Schools, (females,) $1,200; salaries of Vice-Principals of Girls' Grammar Schools, (females,) $960; salaries of First Assistants of Girls' Grammar Schools, (females,) $800; salaries of Second Assistants of Girls' Grammar Schools, (females,) $650; lowest salary of female Assistants, $400.

Boston.-Salaries of Masters, $2,200; salaries of Sub-Masters, $1,800; salaries of Ushers, $1,400; salaries of female Head Assistants, $600; salaries of other female Assistants, $550. Number of pupils to each school, 600 to 800. Number of Pupils per Teacher, 50.

Brooklyn.-Salaries of Principals, $2,000; salaries of Heads of Departments, (females,) $550 to $600; salaries of female Assistants, $300 to $500. Number of pupils in each school, 800 to 1,500.

Philadelphia.-Salaries of Principals Boys' Grammar Schools, $1,500; salaries of Principals Girls' Grammar Schools, (females,) $750; salaries of female Assistants, $300 to $450. Number of pupils to each school, 150 to 250.