It should have been--"_Virtue_ is a common _noun_, personified _proper_, of the _second_ person, singular number, _feminine_ gender, and nominative case." And then the definitions of all these things should have followed in regular numerical order.

He gives the class of this noun wrong, for virtue addressed becomes an individual; he gives the gender wrong, and in direct contradiction to what he says of the word in his section on gender; he gives the person wrong, as may be seen by the pronoun _thou_, which represents it; he repeats the definite article three times unnecessarily, and inserts two needless prepositions, making them different where the relation is precisely the same: and all this, in a sentence of two lines, to tell the properties of the noun _Virtue!_--But further: in etymological parsing, the definitions explaining the properties of the parts of speech, ought to be regularly and rapidly rehearsed by the pupil, till all of them become perfectly familiar; and till he can discern, with the quickness of thought, what alone will be true for the full description of any word in any intelligible sentence.

All these the author omits; and, on account of this omission, his whole method of etymological parsing is, miserably deficient.[62] 31.

Secondly--from his syntactical parsing: "_Vice_ degrades us." Here his form for the word _Vice_ is--"_Vice_ is a common substantive, _of_ the third person, _in the_ singular number, _and the_ nominative case."-- _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, Vol.

ii, p.9.Now, when the learner is told that this is the syntactical parsing of a noun, and the other the etymological, he will of course conclude, that to advance from the etymology to the syntax of this part of speech, is merely, _to omit the gender_--this being the only difference between the two forms.