of its antecedent “the verb,” will see that the import of each part is absurd—­the whole, a two-fold absurdity. (4.) It might be put under Critical Note 7th, among Self-Contradictions; for, to teach at once that “the verb is so called,” and “is called, emphatically,” otherwise,—­namely, “the word,”—­is, to contradict one’s self. (5.) It might be set down under Critical Note 9th, among examples of Words Needless; for the author’s question is, “Why is the verb so called?” and this may be much better answered in fewer words, thus:  “THE VERB is so called, because in French it is called le verbe and in Latin, verbum, which means word.” (6.) It might be put under Critical Note 10th, as an example of Improper Omissions; for it may be greatly bettered by the addition of some words, thus:  “The verb is so called, because [in French] it [is called le verbe, and in Latin, verbum, which] means word:  as there can be no sentence without a verb, this [most important part of speech] is called, emphatically, [the verb,—­q.d.,] the word.” (7.) It might be put under Critical Note 11th, among Literary Blunders; for there is at least one blunder in each of its members. (8.) It might be set down under Critical Note 13th, as an example of Awkwardness; for it is but clumsy work, to teach grammar after this sort. (9.) It might be given under Critical Note 16th, as a sample of the Incorrigible; for it is scarcely possible to eliminate all its defects and retain its essentials.

These instances may suffice to show, that even gross errors of grammar may lurk where they are least to be expected, in the didactic phraseology of professed masters of style or oratory, and may abound where common readers or the generality of hearers will discover nothing amiss.

[446] As a mere assertion, this example is here sufficiently corrected; but, as a definition, (for which the author probably intended it,) it is deficient; and consequently, in that sense, is still inaccurate.  I would also observe that most of the subsequent examples under the present head, contain other errors than that for which they are here introduced; and, of some of them, the faults are, in my opinion, very many:  for example, the several definitions of an adverb, cited below.  Lindley Murray’s definition of this part of speech is not inserted among these, because I had elsewhere criticised that.  So too of his faulty definition of a conjunction.  See the Introduction, Chap.  X. paragraphs 26 and 28.  See also Corrections in the Key, under Note 10th to Rule 1st.