s. 470. _Pure syntax._--So much for one sort of syntax; _viz._, that portion of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of language, that the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of reasoning. The positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such phrases as _I speaks_ (for _I speak_), &c. In cases like these there is no contradiction; since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in joining two incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a first--_and as far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so_. I must here anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by stating that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to most readers must appear startling and to some monstrous, _viz._, to the conclusion that _there is no such thing as bad grammar at all_; _that everything is what the speaker chooses to make it_; _that a speaker may choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of language, and be intelligible_; _that, in short, whatever is is right_. Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the truth of the premises. I may also add that the terms _pure_ and _mixed_, themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express, are not mine but Professor Sylvester's. s. 471. _Mixed syntax._--That, notwithstanding the previous limitations, there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the explanation of combinations _apparently_ ungrammatical; in other words, that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human mind--so accounting for it. _I am going._--Pure syntax explains this. _I have gone._--Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the expression is good English. The power, however, of both _have_ and _gone_ is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed syntax explains. {396} s. 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge--metaphysical, and historical. 1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _the man as rides to market_, instead of the usual expression _the man who rides to market_, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of comparison is the idea common to the words _as_ and _who_. 2. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _I have ridden a horse_ is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign of an accusative case in English the word _horse_ had that sign; in other words that the expression was, originally, _I have a horse as a ridden thing_. These two views illustrate each other.