But many have mistaken the nature of his instructions, no less than that of the common grammarians.

This author, in his third chapter, supposes his auditor to say, "But you have not all this while informed me _how many parts of speech_ you mean to lay down." To whom he replies, "That shall be as you please.

Either _two_, or _twenty_, or _more_." Such looseness comported well enough with his particular purpose; because he meant to teach the derivation of words, and not to meddle at all with their construction.

But who does not see that it is impossible to lay down rules for the _construction_ of words, without first dividing them into the classes to which such rules apply?
For example: if a man means to teach, that, "A verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number," must he not first show the learner _what words are verbs ?_ and ought he not to see in this rule a reason for not calling the participle a verb?
Let the careless followers of Lowth and Priestley answer.

Tooke did not care to preserve any parts of speech at all.