The Grammar of English Grammars Part 143

What can she more _than_ tell us we are fools?"--_Pope._

EXCEPTION FIRST.

The conjunction _that_ sometimes serves merely to introduce a sentence which is made the subject or the object of a finite verb;[433] as, "_That_ mind is not matter, is certain."

"_That_ you have wronged me, doth appear in this."--_Shak._

"_That_ time is mine, O Mead! to thee, I owe."--_Young_.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

When two corresponding conjunctions occur, in their usual order, the former should generally be pa.r.s.ed as referring to the latter, which is more properly the connecting word; as, "_Neither_ sun _nor_ stars in many days appeared."--_Acts_, xxvii, 20. "_Whether_ that evidence has been afforded [_or_ not,] is a matter of investigation."--_Keith's Evidences_, p. 18.

EXCEPTION THIRD. _Either_, corresponding to _or_, and _neither_, corresponding to _nor_ or _not_, are sometimes transposed, so as to repeat the disjunction or negation at the end of the sentence; as, "Where then was their capacity of standing, _or_ his _either_?"--_Barclay's Works_, iii, 359. "It is _not_ dangerous _neither_."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 135.

"He is very tall, but _not_ too tall _neither._"--_Spect._, No. 475.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XXII.

OBS. 1.--Conjunctions that connect particular _words_, generally join similar parts of speech in a common dependence on some other term. Hence, if the words connected be such as have _cases_, they will of course be in the same case; as, "For _me_ and _thee_"--_Matt._, xvii, 27. "Honour thy _father_ and thy _mother_."--_Ib._, xviii, 19. Here the latter noun or p.r.o.noun is connected by _and_ to the former, and governed by the same preposition or verb. Conjunctions themselves have no government, unless the questionable phrase "_than whom_" may be reckoned an exception. See Obs.

17th below, and others that follow it.

OBS. 2.--Those conjunctions which connect _sentences_ or _clauses_, commonly unite one sentence or clause to an other, either as an additional a.s.sertion, or as a condition, a cause, or an end, of what is a.s.serted. The conjunction is placed _between_ the terms which it connects, except there is a transposition, and then it stands before the dependent term, and consequently at the beginning of the whole sentence: as, "He taketh away the first, _that_ he may establish the second."--_Heb._, x, 9. "_That_ he may establish the second, he taketh away the first."

OBS. 3.--The term that follows a conjunction, is in some instances a _phrase_ of several words, yet not therefore a whole clause or member, unless we suppose it elliptical, and supply what will make it such: as, "And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, AS _to the Lord_, AND _not unto men_"--_Col._, iii, 23. If we say, this means, "as _doing it_ to the Lord, and not _as doing it_ unto men," the terms are still mere phrases; but if we say, the sense is, "as _if ye did it_ to the Lord, and not _as if ye did it_ unto men," they are clauses, or sentences. Churchill says, "The office of the conjunction is, to connect one _word_ with an other, or one _phrase_ with an other."--_New Gram._, p. 152. But he uses the term _phrase_ in a more extended sense than I suppose it will strictly bear: he means by it, a _clause_, or _member_; that is, a sentence which forms a part of a greater sentence.

OBS. 4.--What is the office of this part of speech, according to Lennie, Bullions, Brace, Hart, Hiley, Smith, M'Culloch, Webster, Wells, and others, who say that it "joins _words_ and _sentences_ together," (see Errors on p.

434 of this work,) it is scarcely possible to conceive. If they imagine it to connect "_words_" on the one side, to "_sentences_" on the other; this is plainly absurd, and contrary to facts. If they suppose it to join sentence to sentence, by merely connecting word to word, in a joint relation; this also is absurd, and self-contradictory. Again, if they mean, that the conjunction sometimes connects word with word, and sometimes, sentence with sentence; _this sense they have not expressed_, but have severally puzzled their readers by an ungrammatical use of the word "_and_." One of the best among them says, "In _the sentence_, 'He _and_ I must go,' the word _and_ unites _two sentences_, and thus _avoids_ an unnecessary repet.i.tion; thus instead of saying, 'He must go,' 'I must go,'

we connect _the words He, I_, as the same thing is affirmed of _both_, namely, _must go_."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 53. Here is the incongruous suggestion, that _by connecting words only_, the conjunction in fact _connects sentences_; and the stranger blunder concerning _those words_, that "the same thing is affirmed of _both_, namely, [_that they_] _must go_." Whereas it is plain, that nothing is affirmed of either: for "_He and I must go_," only affirms of _him_ and _me_, that "_we must go_." And again it is plain, that _and_ here connects nothing but the two p.r.o.nouns; for no one will say, that, "_He and I must go together_" is a compound sentence, capable of being resolved into two simple sentences; and if, "_He and I must go_," is compound because it is equivalent to, "He must go, and I must go;" so is, "_We must go_," for the same reason, though it has but one nominative and one verb. "_He and I_ were present," is rightly given by Hiley as an example of _two p.r.o.nouns_ connected together by _and_. (See _his Gram._, p. 105.) But, of _verbs_ connected to each other, he absurdly supposes the following to be examples: "He spake, _and_ it was done."--"I know it, _and_ I can prove it."--"Do you say so, _and_ can you prove it?"--_Ib._ Here _and_ connects _sentences_, and not particular _words_.

OBS. 5.--Two or three conjunctions sometimes come together; as, "What rests, _but that_ the mortal sentence pa.s.s?"--_Milton_. "_Nor yet that_ he should offer himself often."--_Heb._, ix, 25. These may be severally pa.r.s.ed as "connecting what precedes and what follows," and the observant reader will not fail to notice, that such combinations of connecting particles are sometimes required by the sense; but, since nothing that is needless, is really proper, conjunctions should not be unnecessarily acc.u.mulated: as, "_But_ AND _if_ that evil servant say in his heart," &c.--_Matt._, xxiv, 48. Greek, "[Greek: Ean de eipae o kakos donlos ekeinos,]" &c. Here is no _and_. "_But_ AND _if_ she depart."--_1 Cor._, vii, 11. This is almost a literal rendering of the Greek, "[Greek: Ean de kai choristhae.]"--yet either _but_ or _and_ is certainly useless. "In several cases," says Priestley, "we content ourselves, now, with fewer conjunctive particles than our ancestors _did_ [say _used_]. Example: '_So_ AS _that_ his doctrines were embraced by great numbers.' _Universal Hist._, Vol. 29, p.

501. _So that_ would have been much easier, and better."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 139. Some of the poets have often used the word _that_ as an expletive, to fill the measure of their verse; as,

"When _that_ the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept."--_Shakspeare_.

"If _that_ he be a dog, beware his fangs."--_Id._

"That made him pine away and moulder, As though _that_ he had been no soldier."--_Butler's Poems_, p. 164.

OBS. 6.--W. Allen remarks, that, "_And_ is sometimes introduced to engage our attention to a following word or phrase; as, 'Part pays, _and_ justly, the deserving steer.' [_Pope._] 'I see thee fall, _and_ by Achilles' hand.'

[_Id._]"--_Allen's E. Gram._, p. 184. The like idiom, he says, occurs in these pa.s.sages of Latin: "'Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.' _Virg_.

'Mors _et_ fugacem persequitur virum.' _Hor_."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 184.

But it seems to me, that _and_ and _et_ are here regular connectives. The former implies a repet.i.tion of the preceding verb: as, "Part pays, _and justly pays_, the deserving steer."--"I see thee fall, _and fall by Achilles' hand_." The latter refers back to what was said before: thus, "Perhaps it will _also_ hereafter delight you to recount these evils."--"_And_ death pursues the man that flees." In the following text, the conjunction is more like an expletive; but even here it suggests an extension of the discourse then in progress: "Lord, _and_ what shall this man do?"--_John_, xxi, 21. "[Greek: Kurie, outos de ti;]"--"Domine, hic _autem_ quid?"--_Beza_.

OBS. 7.--The conjunction _as_ often unites words that are in _apposition_, or in _the same case_; as, "He offered _himself_ AS a _journeyman_."--"I a.s.sume _it_ AS a _fact_."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 94. "In an other example of the same kind, the _earth_, AS a common _mother_, is animated to give refuge against a father's unkindness."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol ii, p.

168. "And then to offer _himself_ up AS a _sacrifice_ and _propitiation_ for them."--_Scougal_, p. 99. So, likewise, when an intransitive verb takes the same case after as before it, by Rule 6th; as, "_Johnson_ soon after engaged AS _usher_ in a school."--_L. Murray_. "_He_ was employed AS _usher_." In all these examples, the case that follows _as_, is determined by that which precedes. If after the verb "_engaged_" we supply _himself, usher_ becomes objective, and is in apposition with the p.r.o.noun, and not in agreement with _Johnson_: "He engaged _himself_ as _usher_." One late writer, ignorant or regardless of the a.n.a.logy of General Grammar, imagines this case to be an "objective governed by the conjunction _as_," according to the following rule: "The conjunction _as_, when it takes the meaning of _for_, or _in the character of_, governs the objective case; as, Addison, _as_ a _writer_ of prose, is highly distinguished."--_J. M. Putnam's Gram._, p. 113. S. W. Clark, in his grammar published in 1848, sets _as_ in his list of _prepositions_, with this example: "'That England can spare from her service such men _as_ HIM.'--_Lord Brougham_."--_Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 92. And again: "When the second term of a _Comparison of equality_ is a Noun, or p.r.o.noun, the _Preposition_ AS is commonly used.

Example--'He hath died to redeem such a rebel _as_ ME.'--_Wesley_."

Undoubtedly, Wesley and Brougham here erroneously supposed the _as_ to connect _words only_, and consequently to require them to be in the same case, agreeably to OBS. 1st, above; but a moment's reflection on the sense, should convince any one, that the construction requires the nominative forms _he_ and _I_, with the verbs _is_ and _am_ understood.

OBS. 8.--The conjunction _as_ may also be used between an adjective or a participle and the noun to which the adjective or participle relates; as, "It does not appear that brutes have the least reflex sense of _actions_ AS _distinguished_ from events; or that will and design, which const.i.tute the very nature of _actions_ AS _such_, are at all an object of their perception."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 277.

OBS. 9.--_As_ frequently has the force of a _relative p.r.o.noun_, and when it evidently sustains the relation of a case, it ought to be called, and generally _is_ called, a p.r.o.noun, rather than a conjunction; as, "Avoid such _as are_ vicious,"--_Anon_. "But as many _as received_ him,"

&c.--_John_, i, 12. "We have reduced the terms into as small a number _as was_ consistent with perspicuity and distinction."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. ix. Here _as_ represents a noun, and while it serves to connect the two parts of the sentence, it is also the subject of a verb. These being the true characteristics of a relative p.r.o.noun, it is proper to refer the word to that cla.s.s. But when a clause or a sentence is the antecedent, it is better to consider the _as_ a conjunction, and to supply the p.r.o.noun _it_, if the writer has not used it; as, "He is angry, _as [it] appears_ by this letter." Horne Tooke says, "The truth is, that AS is _also an article_; and (however and whenever used in English) means the same as _It_, or _That_, or _Which_."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 223. But what definition he would give to _"an article_," does not appear.

OBS. 10.--In some examples, it seems questionable whether _as_ ought to be reckoned a p.r.o.noun, or ought rather to be pa.r.s.ed as a conjunction after which a nominative is understood; as, "He then read the conditions _as follow_."--"The conditions are _as follow_."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 106.

"The princ.i.p.al evidences on which this a.s.sertion is grounded, are _as follow_."--_Gurney's Essays_, p. 166. "The Quiescent verbs are _as follow_."--_Pike's Heb. Lex._, p. 184. "The other numbers are duplications of these, and proceed _as follow_"--_Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang._, Vol. ii, p. 35. "The most eminent of the kennel are bloodhounds, which lead the van, and are _as follow_."--_Steele, Tattler_, No. 62. "His words are _as follow_."--_Spect._, No. 62. "The words are _as follow_."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 513. "The objections that are raised against it as a tragedy, are _as follow_."--_Gay, Pref. to What d' ye call it_. "The particulars are _as follow_."--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 93. "The princ.i.p.al interjections in English are _as follow_."--_Ward's Gram._, p. 81. In all these instances, one may suppose the final clause to mean, "as _they here_ follow;"--or, supposing _as_ to be a p.r.o.noun, one may conceive it to mean, "_such_ as follow." But some critical writers, it appears, prefer the singular verb, "_as follows_" Hear Campbell: "When a verb is used _impersonally_, it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter p.r.o.noun be expressed or understood: and when no nominative in the sentence can regularly be construed with the verb, it ought to be considered as impersonal. For this reason, a.n.a.logy as well as usage _favour_ [say _favours_] this mode of expression, 'The conditions of the agreement were _as follows_;' and not '_as follow_.' A few late writers have inconsiderately adopted this last form through a mistake of the construction. For the same reason we ought to say, 'I shall consider his censures so far only as _concerns_ my friend's conduct;' and not 'so far as _concern_.'"--_Philosophy of Rhet._, p. 229. It is too much to say, at least of one of these sentences, that there is no nominative with which the plural verb can be regularly construed. In the former, the word _as_ may be said to be a plural nominative; or, if we will have this to be a conjunction, the p.r.o.noun _they_, representing _conditions_, may be regularly supplied, as above. In the latter, indeed, _as_ is not a p.r.o.noun; because it refers to "_so far_," which is not a noun. But the sentence is _bad English_; because the verb _concern_ or _concerns_ is improperly left without a nominative. Say therefore, 'I shall consider his censures so far only as _they concern_ my friend's conduct;'--or, 'so far only as _my friend's conduct is concerned_.' The following is an other example which I conceive to be wrong; because, with an adverb for its antecedent, _as_ is made a nominative: "They ought therefore to be uttered _as quickly as is_ consistent with distinct articulation."--_Sheridan's Elocution_, p. 76. Say rather, "They ought therefore to be uttered _with as much rapidity_ as is consistent with distinct articulation."

OBS. 11.--Lindley Murray was so much puzzled with Tooke's notion of _as_, and Campbell's doctrine of the _impersonal verb_, that he has expressly left his pupils to hesitate and doubt, like himself, whether one ought to say "_as follows_" or "_as follow_," when the preceding noun is plural; or--to furnish an alternative, (if they choose it,) he shows them at last how they may _dodge the question_, by adopting some other phraseology. He begins thus: "_Grammarians_ differ in opinion, respecting the propriety of the following modes of expression: 'The arguments advanced were nearly _as follows_;' 'the positions were, _as appears_, incontrovertible.'"-- _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 146. Then follows a detail of suggestions from Campbell and others, all the quotations being anonymous, or at least without definite references. Omitting these, I would here say of the two examples given, that they are not parallel instances. For, "_as follows_,"

refers to what the arguments were,--to the things themselves, considered plurally, and immediately to be exhibited; wherefore the expression ought rather to have been, "_as follow_," or, "_as they here follow_." But, "_as appears_" means "_as it appears_," or "_as the case now appears_;" and one of these plain modes of expression would have been much preferable, because the _as_ is here evidently nothing but a conjunction.

OBS. 12.--"The diversity of sentiment on this subject," says L. Murray, "and the respectability of the different opponents, will naturally induce _the readers_ to pause and reflect, before they decide."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 147. The equivalent expressions by means of which he proposes to evade at last the dilemma, are the following: "The arguments advanced were nearly such as follow;"--"The arguments advanced were nearly of the following nature;"--"The following are nearly the arguments which were advanced;"-- "The arguments advanced were nearly those which follow:"--"These, or nearly these, were the arguments advanced;"--"The positions were such as appear incontrovertible;"--"It appears that the positions were incontrovertible;"

--"That the positions were incontrovertible, is apparent;"--"The positions were apparently incontrovertible;"--"In appearance, the positions were incontrovertible."--_Ibid._ If to shun the expression will serve our turn, surely here are ways enough! But to those who "pause and reflect" with the intention _to decide_, I would commend the following example: "Reconciliation was offered, on conditions as moderate as _were_ consistent with a permanent union."--_Murray's Key_, under Rule 1. Here Murray supposes "_was_" to be wrong, and accordingly changes it to "_were_," by the Rule, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person." But the amendment is a pointed rejection of Campbell's "impersonal verb," or verb which "has no nominative;" and if the singular is not right here, the rhetorician's respectable authority vouches only for a catalogue of errors. Again, if this verb must be _were_ in order to agree with its nominative, it is still not clear that _as_, is, or ought to be, the nominative; because the meaning may perhaps be better expressed thus:--"on conditions as moderate _as any that were_ consistent with a permanent union."

OBS. 13.--A late writer expresses his decision of the foregoing question thus: "Of all the different opinions on a grammatical subject, which have arisen in the literary world, there scarcely appears one more indefensible than that of supposing _as follows_ to be an impersonal verb, and to be correctly used in such sentences as this. 'The conditions were _as follows_.' Nay, we are told that, "A few late writers have adopted this form, 'The conditions were as follow,' _inconsiderately_;" and, to prove this charge of inconsiderateness, the following sentence is brought forward: 'I shall consider his censure [_censures_ is the word used by Campbell and by Murray] so far only _as concern_ my friend's conduct.'

which should be, it is added, '_as concerns_, and not _as concern_.' If a.n.a.logy, simplicity, or syntactical authority, is of any value in our resolution of the sentence, 'The conditions were as follows,' the word _as_ is as evident a relative as language can afford. It is undoubtedly equivalent to _that_ or _which_, and relates to its antecedent _those_ or _such_ understood, and should have been the nominative to the verb _follow_; the sentence, in its present form, being inaccurate. The second sentence is by no means a parallel one. The word _as_ is a conjunction; and though it has, as a relative, a reference to its antecedent _so_, yet in its capacity of a mere conjunction, it cannot possibly be the nominative case to any verb. It should be, '_it concerns_.' Whenever _as_ relates to an _adverbial_ antecedent; as in the sentence, '_So_ far _as_ it concerns me,' it is merely a conjunction; but when it refers to an _adjective_ antecedent; as in the sentence, 'The business is _such as_ concerns me;' it must be a relative, and susceptible of case, whether its antecedent is expressed or understood; being, in fact, the nominative to the verb _concerns_."--_Nixon's Pa.r.s.er_, p. 145. It will be perceived by the preceding remarks, that I do not cite what is here said, as believing it to be in all respects well said, though it is mainly so. In regard to the point at issue, I shall add but one critical authority more: "'The circ.u.mstances were as _follows_.' Several grammarians and critics have approved this phraseology: I am inclined, however, to concur with those who prefer '_as follow_.'"--_Crombie, on Etym. and Synt._, p. 388.

OBS. 14.--The conjunction _that_ is frequently understood; as, "It is seldom [_that_] their counsels are listened to."--_Robertson's Amer._, i, 316. "The truth is, [_that_] grammar is very much neglected among us."--_Lowth's Gram., Pref._, p. vi. "The Sportsman believes [_that_] there is Good in his Chace [chase.]"--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 296.

"Thou warnst me [_that_] I have done amiss; I should have earlier looked to this."--_Scott_.

OBS. 15.--After _than_ or _as_, connecting the terms of a comparison, there is usually an ellipsis of some word or words. The construction of the words employed may be seen, when the ellipsis is supplied; as, "They are stronger _than we_" [are.]--_Numb._, xiii. 31. "Wisdom is better _than weapons_ of war" [are.]--_Eccl._, ix, 18. "He does nothing who endeavours to do more _than_ [what] _is allowed_ to humanity."--_Dr. Johnson_. "My punishment is greater _than_ [what] _I can bear_."--_Gen._, iv, 13. "Ralph gave him more _than I_" [gave him.]--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 351. "Ralph gave him more _than_ [he gave] _me_."_--Ibid._ "Revelation, surely, was never intended for such _as he_" [is.]--_Campbell's Four Gospels_, p. iv. "Let such as _him_ sneer if they will."--_Liberator_, Vol. ix, p. 182. Here _him_ ought to be _he_, according to Rule 2d, because the text speaks of such as _he is_ or _was_. "'You were as innocent of it _as me_:' 'He did it _as well as me_.' In both places it ought to be _I_: that is, _as I was, as I did_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 352.

"Rather let such poor souls _as you_ and _I_ Say that the holidays are drawing nigh."--_Swift_.

OBS. 16.--The doctrine above stated, of ellipses after _than_ and _as_, proceeds on the supposition that these words _are conjunctions_, and that they connect, not particular words merely, but sentences, or clauses. It is the common doctrine of nearly all our grammarians, and is doubtless liable to fewer objections than any other theory that ever has been, or ever can be, devised in lieu of it. Yet _as_ is not always a conjunction; nor, when it is a conjunction, does it always connect sentences; nor, when it connects sentences, is there always an ellipsis; nor, when there is an ellipsis, is it always quite certain what that ellipsis is. All these facts have been made plain, by observations that have already been bestowed on the word: and, according to some grammarians, the same things may severally be affirmed of the word _than_. But most authors consider _than_ to be always a conjunction, and generally, if not always, to connect _sentences_.

Johnson and Webster, in their dictionaries, mark it for an _adverb_; and the latter says of it, "This word signifies also _then_, both in English and Dutch."--_Webster's Amer. Dict._, 8vo, _w. Than_. But what he means by "_also_," I know not; and surely, in no English of this age, is _than_ equivalent to _then_, or _then_ to _than_. The ancient practice of putting _then_ for _than_, is now entirely obsolete;[434] and, as we have no other term of the same import, most of our expositors merely explain _than_ as "a particle used in comparison."--_Johnson, Worcester, Maunder_. Some absurdly define it thus: "THAN, _adv_. Placed in comparison."--_Walker_, (Rhym.

Dict.,) _Jones, Scott_. According to this definition, _than_ would be a _participle_! But, since an express comparison necessarily implies a connexion between different terms, it cannot well be denied that _than_ is a connective word; wherefore, not to detain the reader with any profitless controversy, I shall take it for granted that this word is always a conjunction. That it always connects sentences, I do not affirm; because there are instances in which it is difficult to suppose it to connect anything more than particular words: as, "Less judgement _than_ wit is more sail _than_ ballast."--_Penn's Maxims_. "With no less eloquence _than_ freedom. 'Pari eloquentia _ac_ libertate.' _Tacitus_."--_Walker's Particles_, p. 200. "Any comparison between these two cla.s.ses of writers, cannot be other _than_ vague and loose."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 347. "This _far more than_ compensates all those little negligences."--_Ib._, p. 200.

"Remember Handel? Who that was not born Deaf as the dead to harmony, forgets, Or can, _the more than Homer_ of his age?"--_Cowper_.

OBS. 17.--When any two declinable words are connected by _than_ or _as_, they are almost always, according to the true idiom of our language, to be put in the _same case_, whether we suppose an ellipsis in the construction of the latter, or not; as, "My _Father_ is greater than _I_."--_Bible_.

"What do _ye_ more than _others_?"--_Matt._, v, 47. "More _men_ than _women_ were there."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 114. "Entreat _him_ as a _father_, and the younger _men_ as _brethren_."--_1 Tim._, v, 1. "I would that all _men_ were even as _I_ myself."--_1 Cor._, vii, 7. "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?"--_John_, xxi, 15. This last text is manifestly _ambiguous_; so that some readers will doubt whether it means--"more than _thou lovest these_," or--"more than _these love me_." Is not this because there is an _ellipsis_ in the sentence, and such a one as may be variously conceived and supplied? The original too is ambiguous, but not for the same reason: "[Greek: Simon Iona, agapas me pleion touton];"--And so is the Latin of the Vulgate and of Monta.n.u.s: "Simon Jona, diligis me _plus his_?" Wherefore Beza expressed it differently: "Simon _fili Jonae_, diligis me plus _quam hi_?" The French Bible has it: "Simon, fils de Jona, m'aimes-tu plus que _ne font_ ceux-ci?" And the expression in English should rather have been, "Lovest thou me more than _do_ these?"

OBS. 18.--The comparative degree, in Greek, is said to govern the genitive case; in Latin, the ablative: that is, the genitive or the ablative is sometimes put after this degree without any connecting particle corresponding to _than_, and without producing a compound sentence. We have examples in the phrases, "[Greek: pleion touton]" and "_plus his_," above.

Of such a construction our language admits no real example; that is, no exact parallel. But we have an imitation of it in the phrase _than whom_, as in this hackneyed example from Milton:

"Which, when Beelzebub perceived, _than whom_, Satan except, none higher sat," &c.--_Paradise Lost_, B. ii, l. 300.

The objective, _whom_, is here preferred to the nominative, _who_, because the Latin ablative is commonly rendered by the former case, rather than by the latter: but this phrase is no more explicable according to the usual principles of English grammar, than the error of putting the objective case for a version of the ablative absolute. If the imitation is to be judged allowable, it is to us _a figure of syntax_--an obvious example of _Enallage_, and of that form of Enallage, which is commonly called _Antiptosis_, or the putting of one case for an other.

OBS. 19.--This use of _whom_ after _than_ has greatly puzzled and misled our grammarians; many of whom have thence concluded that _than_ must needs be, at least in this instance, a _preposition_,[435] and some have extended the principle beyond this, so as to include _than which, than whose_ with its following noun, and other nominatives which they will have to be objectives; as, "I should seem guilty of ingrat.i.tude, _than which_ nothing is more shameful." See _Russell's Gram._, p. 104. "Was.h.i.+ngton, _than whose fame_ naught earthly can be purer."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 204. "You have given him more than _I_. You have sent her as much as _he_."--_Buchanan's Eng. Syntax_, p. 116. These last two sentences are erroneously called by their author, "_false syntax_;" not indeed with a notion that _than_ and _as_ are prepositions, but on the false supposition that the preposition _to_ must necessarily be understood between them and the p.r.o.nouns, as it is between the preceding verbs and the p.r.o.nouns _him_ and _her_. But, in fact, "You have given him more than _I_," is perfectly good English; the last clause of which plainly means--"more than I _have given him_." And, "You have sent her as much as _he_," will of course be understood to mean--"as much as he _has sent her_;" but here, because the auxiliary implied is different from the one expressed, it might have been as well to have inserted it: thus, "_You have_ sent her as much as _he has_." "She reviles you as much as _he_," is also good English, though found, with the foregoing, among Buchanan's examples of "false syntax."

OBS. 20.--Murray's twentieth Rule of syntax avers, that, "When the qualities of different things are compared, the latter noun or p.r.o.noun is _not governed_ by the conjunction _than_ or _as_, but agrees with the verb," &c.--_Octavo Gram._, p. 214; _Russell's Gram._, 103; _Bacon's_, 51; _Alger's_, 71; _Smith's_, 179; _Fisk's_, 138. To this rule, the great Compiler and most of his followers say, that _than whom_ "is an exception."

or "_seems to form_ an exception;" to which they add, that, "the phrase is, however, avoided by the best modern writers."--_Murray_, i, 215. This latter a.s.sertion Russell conceives to be untrue: the former he adopts; and, calling _than whom_ "an exception to the general rule," says of it, (with no great consistency,) "Here the conjunction _than_ has certainly the force of a preposition, and supplies its place by governing the relative."--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram._, p. 104. But this is hardly an instance to which one would apply the maxim elsewhere adopted by Murray: "_Exceptio probat regulam_."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 205. To ascribe to a conjunction the governing power of a preposition, is a very wide step, and quite too much like straddling the line which separates these parts of speech one from the other.

OBS. 21.--Churchill says, "If there be no ellipsis to supply, as sometimes happens when a p.r.o.noun relative occurs after _than_; the relative is to be put in the _objective case absolute_: as, 'Alfred, _than whom_ a greater king never reigned, deserves to be held up as a model to all future sovereigns.'"--_New Gram._, p. 153. Among his Notes, he has one with reference to this "_objective case absolute_," as follows: "It is not governed by the conjunction, for on no other occasion does a conjunction govern any case; or by any word understood, for we can insert no word, or words, that will reconcile the phrase with any other rule of grammar: and if we employ a p.r.o.noun personal instead of the relative, as _he_, which will admit of being resolved elliptically, it must be put in the nominative case."--_Ib._, p. 352. Against this gentleman's doctrine, one may very well argue, as he himself does against that of Murray, Russell, and others; that on no other occasion do we speak of putting "the objective case absolute;"

and if, agreeably to the a.n.a.logy of our own tongue, our distinguished authors would condescend to say _than who_,[436] surely n.o.body would think of calling this an instance of the nominative case absolute,--except perhaps one swaggering _new theorist_, that most pedantic of all scoffers, Oliver B. Peirce.

OBS. 22.--The sum of the matter is this: the phrase, _than who_, is a more regular and more a.n.a.logical expression than _than whom_; but both are of questionable propriety, and the former is seldom if ever found, except in some few grammars; while the latter, which is in some sort a Latinism, may be quoted from many of our most distinguished writers. And, since that which is irregular cannot be pa.r.s.ed by rule, if out of respect to authority we judge it allowable, it must be set down among the _figures_ of grammar; which are, all of them, intentional deviations from the ordinary use of words. One late author treats the point pretty well, in this short hint: "After the conjunction _than_, contrary to a.n.a.logy, _whom_ is used in stead of _who_."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 106. An other gives his opinion in the following note: "When _who_ immediately follows _than_, it is used _improperly_ in the objective case; as, 'Alfred, _than whom_ a greater king never reigned;'--_than whom_ is not grammatical. It ought to be, _than who_; because _who_ is the nominative to _was_ understood.--_Than whom_ is as bad a phrase as 'he is taller _than him_.' It is true that some of our best writers have used _than whom_; but it is also true, that they have used _other_ phrases which we have rejected as ungrammatical; then why not reject this too?"--_Lennie's Grammar_, Edition of 1830, p. 105.