The Grammar of English Grammars · Part 77

15. "Participles. Active Voice. Present. Loving. Past. Loved, or having loved. Participles. Passive Voice. Present. Being loved. Past. Having been loved."--John Burn's Practical Gram., p. 70. Here the chief Passive term, "Loved," is omitted, and two of the active forms are confounded.

16. "Present, loving, Past, loved, Compound, having loved."--S. W. Clark's Practical Gram., of 1848, p. 71. "ACT. VOICE.--Present ... Loving [;] Compound [,] Having loved...... Having been loving."--Ib., p. 81. "PAS. VOICE.--Present..... Loved, or, being loved [;] Compound..... Having been loved."--Ib., p. 83. "The Compound Participle consists of the Participle of a principal verb, added to the word having, or being, or to the two words having been. Examples--Having loved--being loved--having been loved."--Ib., p. 71. Here the second extract is deficient, as may be seen by comparing it with the first; and the fourth is grossly erroneous, as is shown by the third. The participles, too, are misnamed throughout.

The reader may observe that the punctuation of the foregoing examples is very discrepant. I have, in brackets, suggested some corrections, but have not attempted a general adjustment of it.

[303] "The most unexceptionable distinction which grammarians make between the participles, is, that the one points to the continuation of the action, passion, or state denoted by the verb; and the other, to the completion of it. Thus, the present participle signifies imperfect action, or action begun and not ended: as, 'I am writing a letter.' The past participle signifies action perfected, or finished: as, 'I have written a letter.'--'The letter is written.'"--Murray's Grammar, 8vo, p. 65. "The first [participle] expresses a continuation; the other, a completion."--W. Allen's Grammar, 12mo, London, 1813. "The idea which this participle [e.g. 'tearing'] really expresses, is simply that of the continuance of an action in an incomplete or unfinished state. The action may belong to time present, to time past, or to time future. The participle which denotes the completion of an action, as torn, is called the perfect participle; because it represents the action as perfect or finished."--Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 51. Emmons stealthily copies from my Institutes as many as ten lines in defence of the term 'Imperfect' and yet, in his conjugations, he calls the participle in ing, "Present." This seems inconsistent. See his "Grammatical Instructer," p. 61.

[304] "The ancient termination (from the Anglo-Saxon) was and; as, 'His schynand sword.' Douglas. And sometimes ende; as, 'She, between the deth and life, Swounende lay full ofte.' Gower."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 88. "The present Participle, in Saxon, was formed by ande, ende, or onde; and, by cutting off the final e, it acquired a Substantive signification, and extended the idea to the agent: as, alysende, freeing, and alysend, a redeemer; freonde, loving or friendly, and freond, a lover or a friend."--Booth's Introd. to Dict., p. 75.

[305] William B. Fowle, a modern disciple of Tooke, treats the subject of grammatical time rather more strangely than his master. Thus: "How many times or tenses have verbs? Two, [the] present and [the] past," To this he immediately adds in a note: "We do not believe in a past any more than a future tense of verbs."--The True English Gram., p. 30. So, between these two authors, our verbs will retain no tenses at all. Indeed, by his two tenses, Fowle only meant to recognize the two simple forms of an English verb. For he says, in an other place, "We repeat our conviction that no verb in itself expresses time of any sort."--Ib., p. 69,

[306] "STONE'-BLIND," "STONE'-COLD," and "STONE'-DEAD," are given in Worcester's Dictionary, as compound adjectives; and this is perhaps their best classification; but, if I mistake not, they are usually accented quite as strongly on the latter syllable, as on the former, being spoken rather as two emphatic words. A similar example from Sigourney, "I saw an infant marble cold," is given by Frazee under this Note: "Adjectives sometimes belong to other adjectives; as, 'red hot iron.'"--Improved Gram., p. 141. But Webster himself, from whom this doctrine and the example are borrowed, (see his Rule XIX,) makes "RED'-HOT" but one word in his Dictionary; and Worcester gives it as one word, in a less proper form, even without a hyphen, "RED'HOT."

[307] "OF ENALLAGE.--The construction which may be reduced to this figure in English, chiefly appears when one part of speech, is used with the power and effect of another."--Ward's English Gram., p. 150.

[308] Forsooth is literally a word of affirmation or assent, meaning for truth, but it is now almost always used ironically: as, "In these gentlemen whom the world forsooth calls wise and solid, there is generally either a moroseness that persecutes, or a dullness that tires you."--Home's Art of Thinking, p. 24.

[309] In most instances, however, the words hereof, thereof, and whereof, are placed after nouns, and have nothing to do with any verb. They are therefore not properly adverbs, though all our grammarians and lexicographers call them so. Nor are they adjectives; because they are not used adjectively, but rather in the sense of a pronoun governed by of; or, what is nearly the same thing, in the sense of the possessive or genitive case. Example: "And the fame hereof went abroad."--Matt., ix, 26. That is, "the fame of this miracle;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.

[310] Seldom is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the seldomest, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."--Blair's Rhet., p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative often, was sometimes used adjectively; as, "Thine often infirmities."--1 Tim., v, 23. "I hope God's Book hath not been my seldomest lectures."--Queen Elizabeth, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb forward: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little forwarder to the teeth."--Pron. Dict., Principles, No. 55.

[311] A few instances of the regular inflection of adverbs ending in ly, may be met with in modern compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring sweetlier in the echo."--The Dial, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would safelier stand the test."--Coleridge's Biog. Lit., Vol. ii, p. 53.

[312] De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative pronouns "Conjunctive Adjectives." See Fosdick's Translation, p. 57. He also says, "The words who, which, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive Nouns and Adverbs, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can substitute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words who, which, etc. Thus, when, where, what, how, as, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish when I please;' that is, 'I shall finish at the time at which I please.'--'I know not where I am;' i.e. 'I know not the place in which I am.'"--Ib., p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive adverbs, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word who appears to me to be a pronoun, and not an adjective; and of his "Conjunctive Nouns," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.

[313] "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows--a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making TWO or more significant Sentences to be ONE significant Sentence."--Harris's Hermes, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.

[314] Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho parsed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be parsed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the nature and construcion [sic--KTH] of a single word," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, analyze. As examples of "a conjunctional phrase," he gives "as if and "as though."--Gram., p. 25. But when he comes to speak of ellipsis, he says: "After the conjunctions than, as, but, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [that is which] will suffice;' 'He acted as [he would act] if he were mad.'"--Ib., p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.

[315] Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt. Harrison cites a good example; pronounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "In the following sentence, the relative pronoun is three times omitted:--'Is there a God to swear by, and is there none to believe in, none to trust to?'--Letters and Essays, Anonymous. By, in, and to, as prepositions, stand alone, denuded of the relatives to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."--Harrison's English Language, p. 196.

[316] "An ellipsis of from after the adverb off has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted incorrectly among the prepositions. Ex. 'off (from) his horse.'"--Hart's Gram., p. 96. Off and on are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "from" after the former, than to after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up."--2 Kings, i, 16.

[317] "Who consequently reduced the greatest part of the island TO their own power."--Swift, on the English Tongue. "We can say, that one nation reduces another TO subjection. But when dominion or power is used, we always, as [so] far as I know, say, reduce UNDER their power" [or dominion]--Blair's Rhet., p. 229.

[318] "O foy, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."--DOUBLE DEALER: Kames, El. of Crit., i, 305.

[319] According to Walker and Webster, la is pronounced law; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French la, which is pronounced lah. Johnson and Webster make la and lo synonymous; deriving lo from the Saxon la, and la either from lo or from the French la. "Law, how you joke, cousin."--Columbian Orator, p. 178. "Law me! the very ghosts are come now!"--Ibid. "Law, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"--Ibid.

"La you! If you speak ill of the devil, How he takes it at heart!"--SHAKESPEARE: Joh. Dict., w. La.

[320] The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"--Newspaper. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"--Shakespeare. "Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"--Id. "Suits my complexion--hey, gal? so I think."--Yankee Schoolmaster. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"--SCOTT'S IVANHOE: Fowler's E. Gram., §29.

[321] Though oh and ah are most commonly used as signs of these depressing passions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "Ah, pleasant proof," &c.--Cowper's Task, p. 179. "Merrily oh! merrily oh!"--Moore's Tyrolese Song. "Cheerily oh! cheerily oh!"--Ib. But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection O: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and substitute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.

[322] This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The object cannot properly be called one of the principal parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."--Goodenow's Gram., p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be the object of a transitive verb; as, 'I wish to ride;' 'I wish you to ride.'"--Ib., p. 37. Or, with the contrary notion, that, "An infinitive may be the object of a preposition, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish for you to ride.'"--Ibid. But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (Ib., p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words added to verbs, and sometimes to other words, to qualify their meaning."--Ib., p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere adjuncts may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the true object of the transitive verb is one of the principal parts of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.

[323] Some writers distinguish sentences as being of three kinds, simple, and complex, and compound; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound. A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is simple; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is complex; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is compound."--Greene's Analysis, p. 3. The term compound, as applied to sentences, is not usually so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A Simple Sentence contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The sun shines.' A Complex Sentence contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The sun and the stars shine.' 'The sun rises and sets.' 'The sun and the stars rise and set.' A Compound Sentence is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The sun shines, and the stars twinkle.' 'The sun rises and sets, as the earth revolves.'"--Pinneo's English Teacher, p. 10; Analytical Gram., pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a complex sentence is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripartite distribution.

[324] The terms clause and member, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called clauses; and those separated by semicolons, are called members."--Hiley' s Gram., p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a clause. When the members of a compound sentence are complex, they are subdivided into clauses; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."--Allen's Gram., p. 128. By some authors, the terms clause and phrase are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import. Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "composing frequently," is absurdly called a clause; "an entire clause of a sentence."--See Murray's Gram., p. 179; Alger's, 61; Fisk's, 108; Ingersoll's, 180; Merchant's, 84; R. C. Smith's, 152; Weld's, 2d Ed., 150. The term sentence also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "James and William," "Thomas and John," and others similar, are called "sentences."--Smith's New Gram., pp. 9 and 10. So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A whole sentence is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' Being a young man, is the object of the preposition of."--Weld's E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "being a young man," here depends upon "of;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "being." The construction of the word "man" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all agreement consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but government is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word in parsing never governs the same word which it qualifies, or with which it agrees."--Practical Gram., p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case governs a verb."--Ib. p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following untrue, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, an consequently agrees with, the preceding word."--Exercises, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, and consequently agrees with it."--Key, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form. See the same example, with the same variation of it, in Smith's New Gram., p. 167; and, without the change, in Ingersoll's, p. 233; and Fisk's, 141.

[326] It has been the notion of some grammarians, that the verb governs the nominative before it. This is an old rule, which seems to have been very much forgotten by modern authors; though doubtless it is as true, and as worthy to be perpetuated, as that which supposes the nominative to govern the verb: "Omne verbum personale finiti modi regit ante se expresse vel subaudite ejusdem numeri et personæ nominativum vel aliquid pro nominativo: ut, ego scribo, tu legis, ille auscultat."--DESPAUTERII SYNT. fol. xvi. This Despauter was a laborious author, who, within fifty years after the introduction of printing, complains that he found his task heavy, on account of the immense number of books and opinions which he had to consult: "Necdum tamen huic operi ultimam manum aliter imposui, quam Apelles olim picturis: siquidem aptius exire, quum in multis tum in hac arte est difficillimum, propter librorum legendorum immensitatem, et opinionum innumeram diversitatem."--Ibid., Epist. Apologetica, A. D. 1513. But if, for this reason, the task was heavy then, what is it now!

[327] Nutting's rule certainly implies that articles may relate to pronouns, though he gives no example, nor can he give any that is now good English; but he may, if he pleases, quote some other modern grammatists, who teach the same false doctrine: as, "RULE II. The article refers to its noun (OR PRONOUN) to limit its signification."--R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 18. Greene's two grammars are used extensively in the state of Maine, but they appear to be little known anywhere else. This author professes to inculcate "the principles established by Lindley Murray." If veracity, on this point, is worth any thing, it is a pity that in both books there are so many points which, like the foregoing parenthesis, belie this profession. He followed here Ingersoll's RULE IV, which is this: "The article refers to a noun OR PRONOUN, expressed or understood, to limit its signification."-- Conversations on E. Gram., p. 185.

[328] It is truly a matter of surprise to find under what titles or heads, many of the rules of syntax have been set, by some of the best scholars that have ever written on grammar. In this respect, the Latin and Greek grammarians are particularly censurable; but it better suits my purpose to give an example or two from one of the ablest of the English. Thus that elegant scholar the Rev. W. Allen: "SYNTAX OF NOUNS. 325. A verb agrees with its nominative case in number and person."--Elements of E. Gram., p. 131. This is in no wise the syntax of Nouns, but rather that of the Verb. Again: "SYNTAX OF VERBS. 405. Active Verbs govern the accusative case; as, I love him. We saw them. God rules the world."--Ib., p. 161. This is not properly the syntax of Verbs, but rather that of Nouns or Pronouns in the accusative or objective case. Any one who has but the least sense of order, must see the propriety of referring the rule to that sort of words to which it is applied in parsing, and not some other. Verbs are never parsed or construed by the latter of these rules nor nouns by the former.

[329] What "the Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, ON THE SAME PLAN," will ultimately be,--how many treatises for each or any of the languages it will probably contain,--what uniformity will be found in the distribution of their several sorts and sizes,--or what sameness they will have, except that which is bestowed by the binders,--cannot yet be stated with any certainty. It appears now, in 1850, that the scheme has thus far resulted in the production of three remarkably different grammars, for the English part of the series, and two more, a Latin grammar and a Greek, which resemble each other, or any of these, as little. In these works, abound changes and discrepances, sometimes indicating a great unsettlement of "principles" or "plan," and often exciting our wonder at the extraordinary variety of teaching, which has been claimed to be, "as nearly in the same words as the as the genius of the languages would permit!" In what should have been uniform, and easily might have been so, these grammars are rather remarkably diverse! Uniformity in the order, number, or phraseology of the Rules of Syntax, even for our own language, seems scarcely yet to have entered this "SAME PLAN" at all! The "onward progress of English grammar," or, rather, of the author's studies therein, has already, within "fifteen years," greatly varied, from the first model of the "Series," his own idea of a good grammar; and, though such changes bar consistency, a future progress, real or imaginary, may likewise, with as good reason, vary it yet as much more. In the preface to the work of 1840, it is said: "This, though not essentially different from the former, is yet in some respects a new work. It has been almost entirely rewritten." And again: "The Syntax is much fuller than in the former work; and though the rules are not different, they are arranged in a different order." So it is proved, that the model needed remodelling; and that the Syntax, especially, was defective, in matter as well as in order. The suggestions, that "the rules are not different," and the works, "not essentially" so, will sound best to those who shall never compare them. The old code has thirty-four chief, and twenty-two "special rules;" the new has twenty chief, thirty-six "special," and one "general rule." Among all these, we shall scarcely find exact sameness preserved in so many as half a dozen instances. Of the old thirty-four, fourteen only were judged worthy to remain as principal rules; and two of these have no claim at all to such rank, one of them being quite useless. Of the twenty now made chief, five are new to "the Series of Grammars," and three of these exceedingly resemble as many of mine; five are slightly altered, and five greatly, from their predecessors among the old: one is the first half of an old rule; one is an old subordinate rule, altered and elevated; and three are as they were before, their numbers and relative positions excepted!

[330] "The grammatical predicate is a verb."--Butler's Pract. Gram., 1845, p. 135, "The grammatical predicate is a finite verb."--Wells's School Gram., 1850, p. 185. "The grammatical predicate is either a verb alone, or the copula sum [some part of the verb be] with a noun or adjective."--Andrews and Stoddard's Lat. Gram., p. 163. "The predicate consists of two parts,--the verb, or copula, and that which is asserted by it, called the attribute; as 'Snow is white.'"--Greene's Analysis. p. 15. "The grammatical predicate consists of the attribute and copula not modified by other word."--Bullions, Analyt, and Pract. Gram., P. 129. "The logical predicate is the grammatical, with all the words or phrases that modify it." Ib. p. 130. "The Grammatical predicate is the word or words containing the simple affirmation, made respecting the subject."--Bullions, Latin Gram., p. 269. "Every proposition necessarily consists of these three parts: [the subject, the predicate, and the copula;] but then it is not alike needful, that they be all severally expressed in words; because the copula is often included in the term of the predicate; as when we say, he sits, which imports the same as, he is sitting."--Duncan's Logic, p 105. In respect to this Third Method of Analysis. It is questionable, whether a noun or an adjective which follows the verb and forms part of the assertion, is to be included in "the grammatical predicate" or not. Wells says, No: "It would destroy at once all distinction between the grammatical and the logical predicate."--School Gram., p. 185. An other question is, whether the copula (is, was or the like,) which the logicians discriminate, should be included as part of the logical predicate, when it occurs as a distinct word. The prevalent practice of the grammatical analyzers is, so to include it,--a practice which in itself is not very "logical." The distinction of subjects and predicates as "grammatical and logical," is but a recent one. In some grammars, the partition used in logic is copied without change, except perhaps of words: as "There are, in sentences, a subject, a predicate and a copula." JOS. R. CHANDLER, Gram. of 1821, p. 105; Gram. of 1847, p. 116. The logicians, however, and those who copy them, may have been hitherto at fault in recognizing and specifying their "copula." Mulligan forcibly argues that the verb of being is no more entitled to this name than is every other verb. (See his Exposition," §46.) If he is right in this, the "copula" of the logicians (an in my opinion, his own also) is a mere figment of the brain, there being nothing that answers to the definition of the thing or to the true use of the word.

[331] I cite this example from Wells, for the purpose of explaining it without the several errors which that gentleman's "Model" incidentally inculcates. He suggests that and connects, not the two relative clauses, as such, but the two verbs can give and can take; and that the connexion between away and is must be traced through the former, and its object which. These positions, I think, are wrong. He also uses here, as elsewhere, the expressions, "which relates it" and, "which is related by," each in a very unusual, and perhaps an unauthorized, sense. His formule reads thus: "Away modifies can take; can take is CONNECTED with can give by and; WHICH is governed by CAN GIVE, and relates to security; security is the object of finding, which is RELATED BY of to conviction; conviction is the object of with, which RELATES IT to can look; to expresses the relation between whom and can look, and whom relates to Being, which is the subject of is." --Wells's School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 192. Neither this nor the subsequent method has been often called "analysis;" for, in grammar, each user of this term has commonly applied it to some one method only,--the method preferred by himself.

[332] The possessive phrase here should be, "Andrews and Stoddard's," as Wells and others write it. The adding of the apostrophe to the former name is wrong, even by the better half of Butler's own absurd and self-contradictory Rule: to wit, "When two or more nouns in the possessive case are connected by and, the possessive termination should be added to each of them; as, 'These are John's and Eliza's books.' But, if objects are possessed in common by two or more, and the nouns are closely connected without any intervening words, the possessive termination is added to the last noun only; as, 'These are John and Eliza's books.'"--Butler's Practical Gram., p. 163. The sign twice used implies two governing nouns: "John's and Eliza's books." "John's books and Eliza's;" "Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," "Andrews' (or Andrews's) Latin Grammar and Stoddard's"

[333] In Mulligan's recent "Exposition of the Grammatical Structure of the English Language,"--the work of an able hand,--this kind of "Analysis," being most improperly pronounced "the chief business of the grammarian," is swelled by copious explanation under minute heads, to a volume containing more than three times as much matter as Greene's; but, since school-boys have little relish for long arguments, and prolixity had here already reached to satiety and disgust, it is very doubtful whether the practical utility of this "Improved Method of Teaching Grammar," will be greater in proportion to this increase of bulk.--G. B., 1853.

[334] "I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently instructs us by rule and example; but I am sure we have none, that in the manner here attempted, teaches us what is right, by showing what is wrong; though this perhaps may prove the more useful and effectual method of Instruction."--Lowth's Gram., Pref., p. viii.

[335] With the possessive case and its governing noun, we use but one article; and sometimes it seems questionable, to which of the two that article properly relates: as, "This is one of the Hebrews' children."--Exodus, ii, 6. The sentence is plainly equivalent to the following, which has two articles: "This is one of the children of the Hebrews." Not because the one article is equivalent to the two, or because it relates to both of the nouns; but because the possessive relation itself makes one of the nouns sufficiently definite. Now, if we change the latter construction back into the former, it is the noun children that drops its article; it is therefore the other to which the remaining article relates. But we sometimes find examples in which the same analogy does not hold. Thus, "a summer's day" means, "a day of summer;" and we should hardly pronounce it equivalent to "the day of a summer." So the questionable phrase, "a three days' journey," means, "a journey of three days;" and, whether the construction be right or wrong, the article a cannot be said to relate to the plural noun. Possibly such a phrase as, "the three years' war," might mean, "the war of three years;" so that the article must relate to the latter noun. But in general it is the latter noun that is rendered definite by the possessive relation: thus the phrase, "man's works" is equivalent to "the works of man," not to "works of the man;" so, "the man's works," is equivalent, not to "the works of man," but to "the works of the man."

[336] Horne Tooke says, "The use of A after the word MANY is a corruption for of; and has no connection whatever with the article A, i. e. one."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 324. With this conjecture of the learned etymologist, I do not concur: it is hardly worth while to state here, what may he urged pro and con.

[337] "Nothing can be more certain than that [in Greek syntax] all words used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed. Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition [with an article] is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed."--J. W. DONALDSON: Journal of Philology, No. 2, p. 223.

[338] Churchill rashly condemns this construction, and still more rashly proposes to make the noun singular without repeating the article. See his New Gram., p. 311. But he sometimes happily forgets his own doctrine; as, "In fact, the second and fourth lines here stamp the character of the measure."--Ib., p. 391. O. B. Peirce says, "'Joram's second and third daughters,' must mean, if it means any thing, his second daughters and third daughters; and, 'the first and second verses.' if it means any thing, must represent the first verses and the second verses."-- Peirce's English Gram., p. 263. According to my notion, this interpretation is as false and hypercritical, as is the rule by which the author professes to show what is right. He might have been better employed in explaining some of his own phraseology, such as, "the indefinite-past and present of the declarative mode."--Ib., p. 100. The critic who writes such stuff as this, may well be a misinterpreter of good common English. It is plain, that the two examples which he thus distorts, are neither obscure nor inelegant. But, in an alternative of single things, the article must be repeated, and a plural noun is improper; as, "But they do not receive the Nicene or the Athanasian creeds."--Adam's Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 105. Say, "creed." So in an enumeration; as, "There are three participles: the present, the perfect, and the compound perfect participles"--Ingersoll's Gram., p. 42. Expunge this last word, "participles." Sometimes a sentence is wrong, not as being in itself a solecism, but as being unadapted to the author's thought. Example: "Other tendencies will be noticed in the Etymological and Syntactical part."--Fowler's E. Gram., N. Y., 1850, p. 75. This implies, what appears not to be true, that the author meant to treat Etymology and Syntax together in a single part of his work. Had he put an s to the noun "part," he might have been understood in either of two other ways, but not in this. To make sure of his meaning, therefore, he should have said--"in the Etymological Part and the Syntactical."

[339] Oliver B. Peirce, in his new theory of grammar, not only adopts Ingersoll's error, but adds others to it. He supposes no ellipsis, and declares it grossly improper ever to insert the pronoun. According to him, the following text is wrong: "My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord."--Heb., xii, 5. See Peirce's Gram., p. 255. Of this gentleman's book I shall say the less, because its faults are so many and so obvious. Yet this is "The Grammar of the English Language," and claims to be the only work which is worthy to be called an English Grammar. "The first and only Grammar of the English Language!"--Ib., p. 10. In punctuation, it is a very chaos, as one might guess from the following Rule: "A word of the second person, and in the subjective case, must have a semicolon after it; as, John; hear me."--Id., p. 282. Behold his practice! "John, beware."--P. 84. "Children, study."--P. 80. "Henry; study."--P. 249. "Pupil: parse."--P. 211; and many other places. "Be thou, or do thou be writing? Be ye or you, or do ye or you be writing?"--P. 110. According to his Rule, this tense requires six semicolons; but the author points it with two commas and two notes of interrogation!

[340] In Butler's Practical Grammar, first published in 1845, this doctrine is taught as a novelty. His publishers, in their circular letter, speak of it as one of "the peculiar advantages of this grammar over preceding works," and as an important matter, "heretofore altogether omitted by grammarians!" Wells cites Butler in support of his false principle: "A verb in the infinitive is often preceded by a noun or pronoun in the objective, which has no direct dependence on any other word. Examples:--'Columbus ordered a strong fortress of wood and plaster to be erected.'--Irving. 'Its favors here should make us tremble.'-- Young." See Wells's School Gram., p. 147.

[341] "Sometimes indeed the verb hath two regimens, and then the preposition is necessary to one of them; as, 'I address myself to my judges.'"--Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 178. Here the verb address governs the pronoun myself, and is also the antecedent to the preposition to; and the construction would be similar, if the preposition governed the infinitive or a participle: as, "I prepared myself to swim;" or, "I prepared myself for swimming." But, in any of these cases, it is not very accurate to say, "the verb has two regimens;" for the latter term is properly the regimen of the preposition. Cardell, by robbing the prepositions, and supposing ellipses, found two regimens for every verb. W. Allen, on the contrary, (from whom Nixon gathered his doctrine above,) by giving the "accusative" to the infinitive, makes a multitude of our active-transitive verbs "neuter." See Allen's Gram., p. 166. But Nixon absurdly calls the verb "active-transitive," because it governs the infinitive; i. e. as he supposes--and, except when to is not used, erroneously supposes.

[342] A certain new theorist, who very innocently fogs himself and his credulous readers with a deal of impertinent pedantry, after denouncing my doctrine that to before the infinitive is a preposition, appeals to me thus: "Let me ask you, G. B.--is not the infinitive in Latin the same as in the English? Thus, I desire to teach Latin--Ego Cupio docere. I saw Abel come--Ego videbam Abelem venire. The same principle is recognized by the Greek grammars and those of most of the modern languages."--O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 358. Of this gentleman I know nothing but from what appears in his book--a work of immeasurable and ill-founded vanity--a whimsical, dogmatical, blundering performance. This short sample of his Latin, (with six puerile errors in seven words,) is proof positive that he knows nothing of that language, whatever may be his attainments in Greek, or the other tongues of which he tells. To his question I answer emphatically, NO. In Latin, "One verb governs an other in the infinitive; as, Cupio discere, I desire to learn."--Adam's Gram., p. 181. This government never admits the intervention of a preposition. "I saw Abel come," has no preposition; but the Latin of it is, "Vidi Abelem venientem," and not what is given above; or, according to St. Jerome and others, who wrote, "Abel," without declension, we ought rather to say, "Vidi Abel venientem." If they are right, "Ego videbam Abelem venire," is every word of it wrong!

[343] Priestley cites these examples as authorities, not as false syntax. The errors which I thus quote at secondhand from other grammarians, and mark with double references, are in general such as the first quoters have allowed, and made themselves responsible for; but this is not the case in every instance. Such credit has sometimes, though rarely, been given, where the expression was disapproved.--G. BROWN.

[344] Lindley Murray thought it not impracticable to put two or more nouns in apposition and add the possessive sign to each; nor did he imagine there would often be any positive impropriety in so doing. His words, on this point, are these: "On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing, and perhaps in some cases incorrect: as, 'The Emperor's Leopold's; King George's; Charles's the Second's; The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's."--Octavo Gram., p. 177. Whether he imagined any of these to be "incorrect" or not, does not appear! Under the next rule, I shall give a short note which will show them all to be so. The author, however, after presenting these uncouth fictions, which show nothing but his own deficiency in grammar, has done the world the favour not to pronounce them very convenient phrases; for he continues the paragraph as follows: "The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconveniences of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.'--Ib. This undeserved praise of his own rules, he might as well have left to some other hand. They have had the fortune, however, to please sundry critics, and to become the prey of many thieves; but are certainly very deficient in the three qualities here named; and, taken together with their illustrations, they form little else than a tissue of errors, partly his own, and partly copied from Lowth and Priestley.

Dr. Latham, too, and Prof. Child, whose erroneous teaching on this point is still more marvellous, not only inculcate the idea that possessives in form may be in apposition, but seem to suppose that two possessive endings are essential to the relation. Forgetting all such English as we have in the phrases, "John the Baptist's head,"--"For Jacob my servant's sake,"--"Julius Cæsar's Commentaries,"--they invent sham expressions, too awkward ever to have come to their knowledge from any actual use,--such as, "John's the farmer's wife,"--"Oliver's the spy's evidence,"--and then end their section with the general truth, "For words to be in apposition with each other, they must be in the same case."--Elementary Grammar, Revised Edition, p. 152. What sort of scholarship is that in which fictitious examples mislead even their inventors?

[345] In Professor Fowler's recent and copious work, "The English Language in its Elements and Forms," our present Reciprocals are called, not Pronominal Adjectives, but "Pronouns," and are spoken of, in the first instance, thus: "§248. A RECIPROCAL PRONOUN is one that implies the mutual action of different agents. EACH OTHER, and ONE ANOTHER, are our reciprocal forms, which are treated exactly as if they were compound pronouns, taking for their genitives, each other's, one another's. Each other is properly used of two, and one another of more." The definition here given takes for granted what is at least disputable, that "each other," or "one another," is not a phrase, but is merely "one pronoun." But, to none of his three important positions here taken, does the author himself at all adhere. In §451, at Note 3, he teaches thus: "'They love each other.' Here each is in the nominative case in apposition with they, and other is in the objective case. 'They helped one another.' Here one is in apposition with they, and another is in the objective case." Now, by this mode of parsing, the reciprocal terms "are treated," not as "compound pronouns," but as phrases consisting of distinct or separable words: and, as being separate or separable words, whether they be Adjectives or Pronouns, they conform not to his definition above. Out of the sundry instances in which, according to his own showing, he has misapplied one or the other of these phrases, I cite the following: (1.) "The two ideas of Science and Art differ from one another as the understanding differs from the will."--Fowler's Gram., 1850, §180. Say,--"from each other;" or,--"one from the other." (2.) "THOU, THY, THEE, are etymologically related to each other."--Ib., §216. Say,--"to one an other;" because there are "more" than "two." (3.) "Till within some centuries, the Germans, like the French and the English, addressed each other in familiar conversation by the Second Person Singular."--Ib., §221. Say,--"addressed one an other." (4.) "Two sentences are, on the other hand, connected in the way of co-ordination [,] when they are not thus dependent one upon another."--Ib., §332. Say,--"upon each other;" or,--"one upon the other;" because there are but two. (5.) "These two rivers are at a great distance from one another."--Ib., §617. Say,--"from each other;" or,--"one from the other." (6.) "The trees [in the Forest of Bombast] are close, spreading, and twined into each other."--Ib., §617. Say,--"into one an other."

[346] For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference: "Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase." But in my edition of Dr. Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I do not find the passage. Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part.--G. BROWN.

[347] By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of participles to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood literally, assumes it as an "established principle," that they all do so! "Participles govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, require the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, without the intervention of the preposition of; as 'Much depends on William's observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it;' or, 'Much will depend on the rule's being observed by William, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 94. These sentences, without doubt, are nearly equivalent to each other in meaning. To make them exactly so, "depends" or "will depend" must be changed in tense, and "its being neglected" must be "its being neglected by him." But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among "the established principles and best usages of the English language?"--Ib., p. 1.

[348] What, in Weld's "Abridged Edition," is improperly called a "participial noun," was, in his "original work," still more erroneously termed "a participial clause." This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the participial--"object possessed;" but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss. "The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the clause, 'composing frequently.' NOTE.--The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial clause following it."--Weld's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 150. Again: "The possessive is often governed by a participial noun; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the participial noun composing. NOTE.--The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial noun following it."--Weld's Gram., Abridged, p. 117. Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can produce false syntax. To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note: "The participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived."--Ibid. When one part of speech is said to be used as an other, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand to which class the given word belongs. If "the participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties," it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a nounal participle, whether the thing be allowable or not. Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent. Wells says, "Participles are often used in the sense of nouns; as, 'There was again the smacking of whips, the clattering of hoofs, and the glittering of harness.'--IRVING."--School Gram., p. 154. This is not well stated; because these are participial nouns, and not "participles." What Wells calls "participial nouns," differ from these, and are all spurious, all mongrels, all participles rather than nouns. In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman. His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is proper, and only instructs him not to form it without the sign! It is this: "When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a participle used as a noun, is properly in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted."--School Gram., p. 121. All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner. Those which are called "Correct," are, I think erroneous; and those which are called "False Syntax," the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.

[349] It is remarkable, that Lindley Murray, with all his care in revising his work, did not see the inconsistency of his instructions in relation to phrases of this kind. First he copies Lowth's doctrine, literally and anonymously, from the Doctor's 17th page, thus: "When the thing to which another is said to belong, is expressed by a circumlocution, or by many terms, the sign of the possessive case is commonly added to the last term: as, 'The king of Great Britain's dominions.'"--Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 45. Afterwards he condemns this: "The word in the genitive case is frequently PLACED IMPROPERLY: as, 'This fact appears from Dr. Pearson of Birmingham's experiments.' It should be, 'from the experiments of Dr. Pearson of Birmingham.' "--Ib., p. 175. And again he makes it necessary: "A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign at or near the end of the phrase: as, 'Whose prerogative is it? It is the king of Great Britain's;' 'That is the duke of Bridgewater's canal;' " &c.--Ib., p. 276. Is there not contradiction in these instructions?

[350] A late grammarian tells us: "In nouns ending in es and ss, the other s is not added; as, Charles' hat, Goodness' sake."--Wilcox's Gram., p. 11. He should rather have said, "To nouns ending in es or ss, the other s is not added." But his doctrine is worse than his syntax; and, what is remarkable, he himself forgets it in the course of a few minutes, thus: "Decline Charles. Nom. Charles, Poss. Charles's, Obj. Charles."--Ib., p. 12. See the like doctrine in Mulligan's recent work on the "Structure of Language," p. 182.

[351] VAUGELAS was a noted French critic, who died in 1650. In Murray's Grammar, the name is more than once mistaken. On page 359th, of the edition above cited, it is printed "Vangelas"--G. BROWN.

[352] Nixon parses boy, as being "in the possessive case, governed by distress understood;" and girl's, as being "coupled by nor to boy," according to the Rule, "Conjunctions connect the same cases." Thus one word is written wrong; the other, parsed wrong: and so of all his examples above.--G. BROWN.

[353] Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into "transitive, intransitive, and passive;" but whose late edition absurdly make all passives transitive; says, in his third edition, "A transitive verb is a verb that has some noun or pronoun for its object;" (p. 78;) adopts, in his syntax, the old dogma, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case;" (3d Ed., p. 154;) and to this rule subjoins a series of remarks, so singularly fit to puzzle or mislead the learner, and withal so successful in winning the approbation of committees and teachers, that it may be worth while to notice most of them here.

"REM. 1.--A sentence or phrase often supplies the place of a noun or pronoun in the objective case; as, 'You see how few of these men have returned.'"--Wells' s School Gram., "Third Thousand," p. 154; late Ed. §215. According to this, must we not suppose verbs to be often transitive, when not made so by the author's definition? And if "see" is here transitive, would not other forms, such as are told, have been told, or are aware, be just as much so, if put in its place?

"REM. 2.--An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective, when the verb and the noun depending upon it are of kindred signification; as, 'To live a blameless life;'--'To run a race.'"--Ib. Here verbs are absurdly called "intransitive," when, both in fact and by the foregoing definition, they are clearly transitive; or, at least, are, by many teachers, supposed to be so.

"REM. 3.--Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which intransitive verbs are followed by objectives depending upon them; as, 'To look the subject fully in the face.'--Channing. 'They laughed him to scorn.'--Matt. 9:24. 'And talked the night away.'--Goldsmith."-- Ib. Here again, verbs evidently made transitive by the construction, are, with strange inconsistency, called "intransitive." By these three remarks together, the distinction between transitives and intransitives must needs be extensively obscured in the mind of the learner.

"REM. 4.--Transitive verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives; as, 'Ask him his opinion;'--'This experience taught me a valuable lesson.'--'Spare me yet this bitter cup.'--Hemans. 'I thrice presented him a kingly crown.'--Shakspeare."--Ib. This rule not only jumbles together several different constructions, such as would require different cases in Latin or Greek, but is evidently repugnant to the sense of many of the passages to which it is meant to be applied. Wells thinks, the practice of supplying a preposition, "is, in many cases, arbitrary, and does violence to an important and well established idiom of the language."--Ib. But how can any idiom be violated by a mode of parsing, which merely expounds its true meaning? If the dative case has the meaning of to, and the ablative has the meaning of from, how can they be expounded, in English, but by suggesting the particle, where it is omitted? For example: "Spare me yet [from] this bitter cup."--"Spare [to] me yet this joyous cup." This author says, "The rule for the government of two objectives by a verb, without the aid of a preposition, is adopted by Webster, Murray, Alexander, Frazee, Nutting, Perley, Goldsbury, J. M. Putnam, Hamlin, Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others."--Ib. Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. Such a rule as this, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited. Lindley Murray's remark, "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case," is applied only to words in apposition, and wrong even there; Perley's rule is only of "Some verbs of asking and teaching;" and Nutting's note, "It sometimes happens that one transitive verb governs two objective cases," is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.

"REM. 5.--Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed in the passive voice to govern a noun or pronoun; as, 'He was asked his opinion.'--Johnson. 'He had been refused shelter.'-- Irving."--Ib., p. 155, §215. Passive governing is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of two sorts; the one elliptical, the other solecistical. The former text appears to mean, "He was asked for, his opinion;"--or, "He was asked to give his opinion: the latter should have been, "Shelter had been refused him;"--i.e., "to him." Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are corrected, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells's own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition. Having just given a rule, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this not: "This form of expression is anomalous, and might, in many cases, be improved. Thus, instead of saying, 'He was offered a seat on the council,' it would be preferable to say 'A seat in the council was offered [to] him.'"--Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition to, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to passive government, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also. For the ellipsis of to, before "him," is just as evident in the active expression, "I thrice presented him a kingly crown," as in the passive, "A kingly crown was thrice presented him." It is absurd to deny it in either. Having offset himself, Wells as ingeniously balances his authorities, pro and con; but, the elliptical examples being allowable, he should not have said that I and others "condemn this usage altogether."

"REM. 6.--The passive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb; as 'He was listened to.'--'Nor is this to be scoffed at.'--'This is a tendency to be guarded against.'--'A bitter persecution was carried on.'--Hallam."-- Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. The words here called "prepositions," are adverbs. Prepositions they cannot be; because they have no subsequent term. Nor is it either necessary or proper, to call them parts of the verb: "was carried on," is no more a "compound verb," than "was carried off," or "was carried forward," and the like.

"REM. 7.--Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which a noun in the objective is preceded by a passive verb, and followed by a preposition used adverbially. EXAMPLES: 'Vocal and instrumental music were made use of.'--Addison. 'The third, fourth, and fifth, were taken possession of at half past eight."--Southey. 'The Pinta was soon lost sight of in the darkness of the night.'--Irving."--Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. As it is by the manner of their use, that we distinguish prepositions and adverbs, it seems no more proper to speak of "a preposition used adverbially," than of "an adverb used prepositionally." But even if the former phrase is right and the thing conceivable, here is no instance of it; for "of" here modifies no verb, adjective, or adverb. The construction is an unparsable synchysis, a vile snarl, which no grammarian should hesitate to condemn. These examples may each be corrected in several ways: 1. Say--"were used;"--"were taken into possession;"--"was soon lost from sight." 2. Say--"They made use of music, both vocal and instrumental."--"Of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, they took possession at half past eight."--"Of the Pinta they soon list sight," &c. 3. Say--"Use was also made of both vocal and instrumental music."--"Possession of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, was taken at half past eight."--"The Pinta soon disappeared in the darkness of the night." Here again, Wells puzzles his pupil, with a note which half justifies and half condemns the awkward usage in question. See School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 147; 3d Ed., 156; late Ed., Sec. 215.

"REM. 8.--There are some verbs which may be used either transitively or intransitively; as, 'He will return in a week,' 'He will return the book.'"--Ib., p. 147; 156; &c. According to Dr. Johnson, this is true of "most verbs," and Lindley Murray asserts it of "many." There are, I think, but few which may not, in some phraseology or other, be used both ways. Hence the rule, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case," or, as Wells now has it, "Transitive verbs, in the active voice, govern the objective case," (Sec. 215,) rests only upon a distinction which itself creates, between transitives and intransitives; and therefore it amounts to little.

[354] To these examples, Webster adds two others, of a different sort, with a comment, thus: "'Ask him his opinion?' 'You have asked me the news.' Will it be said that the latter phrases are elliptical, for 'ask of him his opinion?' I apprehend this to be a mistake. According to the true idea of the government of a transitive verb, him must be the object in the phrase under consideration, as much as in this, 'Ask him for a guinea;' or in this, 'ask him to go.'"--Ibid, ut supra; Frazee's Gram., p. 152; Fowler's, p. 480. If, for the reason here stated, it is a "mistake" to supply of in the foregoing instances, it does not follow that they are not elliptical. On the contrary, if they are analogous to, "Ask him for a guinea;" or, "Ask him to go;" it is manifest that the construction must be this: "Ask him [for] his opinion;" or, "Ask him [to tell] his opinion." So that the question resolves itself into this: What is the best way of supplying the ellipsis, when two objectives thus occur after ask?--G. BROWN.

[355] These examples Murray borrowed from Webster, who published them, with references, under his 34th Rule. With too little faith in the corrective power of grammar, the Doctor remarks upon the constructions as follows: "This idiom is outrageously anomalous, but perhaps incorrigible."-- Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 180; Imp. G., 128.

[356] This seems to be a reasonable principle of syntax, and yet I find it contradicted, or a principle opposite to it set up, by some modern teachers of note, who venture to justify all those abnormal phrases which I here condemn as errors. Thus Fowler: "Note 5. When a Verb with its Accusative case, is equivalent to a single verb, it may take this accusative after it in the passive voice; as, 'This has been put an end to.'"--Fowler's English Language, 8vo, §552. Now what is this, but an effort to teach bad English by rule?--and by such a rule, too, as is vastly more general than even the great class of terms which it was designed to include? And yet this rule, broad as it is, does not apply at all to the example given! For "put an end," without the important word "to," is not equivalent to stop or terminate. Nor is the example right. One ought rather to say, "This has been ended;" or, "This has been stopped." See the marginal Note to Obs. 5th, above.

[357] Some, however, have conceived the putting of the same case after the verb as before it, to be government; as, "Neuter verbs occasionally govern either the nominative or [the] objective case, after them."--Alexander's Gram., p. 54. "The verb to be, always governs a Nominative, unless it be of the Infinitive Mood."--Buchanan's Gram., p. 94. This latter assertion is, in fact, monstrously untrue, and also solecistical.

[358] Not unfrequently the conjunction as intervenes between these "same cases," as it may also between words in apposition; as, "He then is as the head, and we as the members; he the vine, and we the branches."--Barclay's Works, Vol. ii, p. 189.

[359] "'Whose house is that?' This sentence, before it is parsed, should be transposed; thus, 'Whose is that house?' The same observation applies to every sentence of a similar construction."--Chandler's old Gram., p. 93. This instruction is worse than nonsense; for it teaches the pupil to parse every word in the sentence wrong! The author proceeds to explain Whose, as "qualifying house, understood;" is, as agreeing "with its nominative, house;" that, as "qualifying house;" and house, as "nominative case to the verb, is." Nothing of this is true of the original question. For, in that, Whose is governed by house; house is nominative after is; is agrees with house understood; and that relates to house understood. The meaning is, "Whose house is that house?" or, in the order of a declarative sentence, "That house is whose house?"

[360] 1: In Latin, the accusative case is used after such a verb, because an other word in the same case is understood before it; as, "Facere quæ libet, ID est [hominem] esse regem."--SALLUST. "To do what he pleases, THAT is [for a man] to be a king." If Professor Bullions had understood Latin, or Greek, or English, as well as his commenders imagine, he might have discovered what construction of cases we have in the following instances: "It is an honour [for a man] to be the author of such a work."--Bullions's Eng. Gram., p. 82. "To be surety for a stranger [,] is dangerous."--Ib. "Not to know what happened before you were born, is to be always a child."--Ib. "Nescire quid acciderit antequam natus es, est semper esse puerum."--Ib. "[Greek: Esti tion aischron ...topon, hon hæmen pote kurioi phainesthai proiemenous]." "It is a shame to be seen giving up countries of which we were once masters."--DEMOSTHENES: ib. What support these examples give to this grammarian's new notion of "the objective indefinite" or to his still later seizure of Greene's doctrine of "the predicate-nominative" the learned reader may judge. All the Latin and Greek grammarians suppose an ellipsis, in such instances; but some moderns are careless enough of that, and of the analogy of General Grammar in this case, to have seconded the Doctor in his absurdity. See Farnum's Practical Gram., p. 23; and S. W. Clark's, p. 149.

2. Professor Hart has an indecisive remark on this construction, as follows: "Sometimes a verb in the infinitive mood has a noun after it without any other noun before it; as, 'To be a good man, is not so easy a thing as many people imagine.' Here 'man' may be parsed as used indefinitely after the verb to be. It is not easy to say in what case the noun is in such sentences. The analogy of the Latin would seem to indicate the objective.--Thus, 'Not to know what happened in past years, is to be always a child,' Latin, 'semper esse puerum.' In like manner, in English, we may say, 'Its being me, need make no change in your determination.'"--Hart's English Gram., p. 127.

3. These learned authors thus differ about what certainly admits of no other solution than that which is given in the Observation above. To parse the nouns in question, "as used indefinitely," without case, and to call them "objectives indefinite," without agreement or government, are two methods equally repugnant to reason. The last suggestion of Hart's is also a false argument for a true position. The phrases, "Its being me," and "To be a good man," are far from being constructed "in like manner." The former is manifestly bad English; because its and me are not in the same case. But S. S. Greene would say, "Its being I, is right." For in a similar instance, he has this conclusion: "Hence, in abridging the following proposition, 'I was not aware that it was he,' we should say 'of its being he,' not 'his' nor 'him.'"--Greene's Analysis, 1st Ed., p. 171. When being becomes a noun, no case after it appears to be very proper; but this author, thus "abridging" four syllables into five, produces an anomalous construction which it would be much better to avoid.

[361] Parkhurst and Sanborn, by what they call "A NEW RULE," attempt to determine the doubtful or unknown case which this note censures, and to justify the construction as being well-authorized and hardly avoidable. Their rule is this: "A noun following a neuter or [a] passive participial noun, is in the nominative independent. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, always precedes the participial noun, either expressed or understood, signifying the same thing as the noun does that follows it." To this new and exceptionable' dogma, Sanborn adds: "This form of expression is one of the most common idioms of the language, and in general composition cannot be well avoided. In confirmation of the statement made, various authorities are subjoined. Two grammarians only, to our knowledge, have remarked OH this phraseology: 'Participles are sometimes preceded by a possessive case and followed by a nominative; as, There is no doubt of his being a great statesman.' B. GREENLEAF. 'We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word retained unchanged in connexion with it; as, I have some recollection of his father's being a judge.' GOOLD BROWN."--Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 189. On what principle the words statesman and judge can be affirmed to be in the nominative case, I see not; and certainly they are not nominatives "independent" because the word being, after which they stand, is not itself independent. It is true, the phraseology is common enough to be good English: but I dislike it; and if this citation from me, was meant for a confirmation of the reasonless dogmatism preceding, it is not made with fairness, because my opinion of the construction is omitted by the quoter. See Institutes of English Gram., p. 162. In an other late grammar,--a shameful work, because it is in great measure a tissue of petty larcenies from my Institutes, with alterations for the worse,--I find the following absurd "Note," or Rule: "An infinitive or participle is often followed by a substantive explanatory of an indefinite person or thing. The substantive is then in the objective case, and may be called the objective after the infinitive, or participle; [as,] It is an honor to be the author of such a work. His being a great man, did not make him a happy man. By being an obedient child, you will secure the approbation of your parents."--Farnum's Practical Gram., 1st Ed., p. 25. The first of these examples is elliptical; (see Obs. 12th above, and the Marginal Note;) the second is bad English,--or, at' any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for same cases; and the third parsed wrong by the rule: "child" is in the nominative case. See Obs. 7th above.

[362] When the preceding case is not "the verb's nominative" this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the word which is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, "constructively follows," in lieu of the phrase, "comes after."

[363] The author of this example supposes friend to be in the nominative case, though John's is in the possessive, and both words denote the same person. But this is not only contrary to the general rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules. Example: "Maria's duty, as a teacher, is, to instruct her pupils." Here, he says, "Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria, denoting the same object."--Peirce's Gram., p. 211. This explanation, indeed, is scarcely intelligible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy. He means, however, that, "Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria's, the two words denoting the same object." No word can be possessive "from its relation to the name Maria," except by standing immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, "Sterne's Maria."

[364] Dr. Webster, who was ever ready to justify almost any usage for which he could find half a dozen respectable authorities, absurdly supposes, that who may sometimes be rightly preferred to whom, as the object of a preposition. His remark is this: "In the use of who as an interrogative, there is an apparent deviation from regular construction--it being used without distinction of case; as, 'Who do you speak to?' 'Who is she married to?' 'Who is this reserved for?' 'Who was it made by?' This idiom is not merely colloquial: it is found in the writings of our best authors."--Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 194; his Improved Gram., p. 136. "In this phrase, 'Who do you speak to?' there is a deviation from regular construction; but the practice of thus using who, in certain familiar phrases, seems to be established by the best authors."--Webster's Rudiments of E. Gram., p. 72. Almost any other solecism may be quite as well justified as this. The present work shows, in fact, a great mass of authorities for many of the incongruities which it ventures to rebuke.

[365] Grammarians differ much as to the proper mode of parsing such nouns. Wells says, "This is the case independent by ellipsis."--School Gram., p. 123. But the idea of such a case is a flat absurdity. Ellipsis occurs only where something, not uttered, is implied; and where a preposition is thus wanting, the noun is, of course, its object; and therefore not independent. Webster, with too much contempt for the opinion of "Lowth, followed by the whole tribe of writers on this subject," declares it "a palpable error," to suppose "prepositions to be understood before these expressions;" and, by two new rules, his 22d and 28th, teaches, that, "Names of measure or dimension, followed by an adjective," and "Names of certain portions of time and space, and especially words denoting continuance of time or progression, are used without a governing word."--Philos. Gram., pp. 165 and 172; Imp. Gram., 116 and 122; Rudiments, 65 and 67. But this is no account at all of the construction, or of the case of the noun. As the nominative, or the case which we may use independently, is never a subject of government, the phrase, "without a governing word," implies that the case is objective; and how can this case be known, except by the discovery of some "governing word," of which it is the object? We find, however, many such rules as the following: "Nouns of time, distance, and degree, are put in the objective case without a preposition."--Nutting's Gram., p. 100. "Nouns which denote time, quantity, measure, distance, value, or direction are often put in the objective case without a preposition."--Weld's Gram., p. 153; "Abridged Ed.," 118. "Numes signifying duration, extension, quantity, quality, and valuation, are in the objective case without a governing word."--Frazee's Gram., p. 154. Bullions, too, has a similar rule. To estimate these rules aright, one should observe how often the nouns in question are found with a governing word. Weld, of late, contradicts himself by admitting the ellipsis; and then, inconsistently with his admission, most absurdly denies the frequent use of the preposition with nouns of time, quantity, &c. "Before words of this description, the ellipsis of a preposition is obvious. But it is seldom proper to use the preposition before such words."--Weld's "Abridged Edition," p. 118.

[366] Professor Fowler absurdly says, "Nigh, near, next, like, when followed by the objective case, may be regarded either as Prepositions or as Adjectives, to being understood."--Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, §458, Note 7. Now, "to being understood," it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be complex, and to be partly suppressed. This can be nothing better than an idle whim; and, since the classification of words as parts of speech, is always positive and exclusive, to refer any particular word indecisively to "either" of two classes, is certainly no better teaching, than to say, "I do not know of which sort it is; call it what you please!" With decision prompt enough, but with too little regard to analogy or consistency, Latham and Child say, "The adjective like governs a case, and it is the only adjective that does so."--Elementary Gram., p. 155. In teaching thus, they seem to ignore these facts: that near, nigh, or opposite, might just as well be said to be an adjective governing a case; and that the use of to or unto after like has been common enough to prove the ellipsis. The Bible has many examples; as, "Who is like to thee in Israel?"--1 Samuel, xxvi, 15. "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first."--Exodus, xxxiv, 1; and Deut., x, 1. But their great inconsistency here is, that they call the case after like "a dative"--a case unknown to their etymology! See Gram. of E. Gram., p. 259. In grammar, a solitary exception or instance can scarcely be a true one.