The Grammar of English Grammars Part 296

[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 p.r.o.noun. 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: pa.r.s.e."--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 p.r.o.noun 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 p.r.o.noun _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 mult.i.tude 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 p.r.o.nounce 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 ill.u.s.trations, 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 Caesar'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 scholars.h.i.+p is that in which _fict.i.tious 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 _p.r.o.nominal Adjectives_, but "_p.r.o.nouns_," and are spoken of, in the first instance, thus: "--248. A RECIPROCAL p.r.o.nOUN 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 p.r.o.nouns_, 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 p.r.o.noun_." 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 p.r.o.nouns," but as phrases consisting of distinct or separable words: and, as being separate or separable words, whether they be Adjectives or p.r.o.nouns, 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 _an_other."--_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 _an_other."--_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 pa.s.sage. 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_, a.s.sumes it as an "_established principle_," that they _all_ do so! "_Participles govern_ nouns and p.r.o.nouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, _require_ the noun or p.r.o.noun 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 a.n.a.logy 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 cla.s.s_ 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 p.r.o.noun, 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 circ.u.mlocution, 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_ ca.n.a.l;' " &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."--_Wilc.o.x'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 pa.r.s.es _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, pa.r.s.ed wrong: and so of _all_ his examples above.--G. BROWN.

[353] Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into "_transitive, intransitive_, and _pa.s.sive_;" but whose late edition absurdly make all pa.s.sives transitive; says, in his third edition, "A _transitive verb_ is a verb that _has some noun or p.r.o.noun_ 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 p.r.o.noun 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sive voice _to govern_ a noun or p.r.o.noun; as, 'He _was asked_ his _opinion.'--Johnson_. 'He _had been refused shelter_.'-- _Irving_."--_Ib._, p. 155, --215. Pa.s.sive _governing_ is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of ill.u.s.tration, 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 pa.s.sive 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 a.s.sumed 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 _pa.s.sive 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 pa.s.sive, "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 pa.s.sive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a _preposition_, forming a _compound pa.s.sive 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 pa.s.sive 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 a.s.serts 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 a.n.a.logous 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 pa.s.sive 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 cla.s.s 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 a.s.sertion 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 pa.r.s.ed, _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 pa.r.s.e 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 quae libet, ID est [_hominem_] esse _regem_."--SALl.u.s.t. "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 haemen 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 a.n.a.logy 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 pa.r.s.ed as used _indefinitely_ after the verb _to be_. It is not easy to say in what _case_ the noun is in such sentences. The a.n.a.logy 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 pa.r.s.e 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 a.n.a.lysis_, 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] pa.s.sive participial noun, is in the _nominative independent_. A noun or p.r.o.noun 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 a.n.a.lytical 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 _Inst.i.tutes 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 Inst.i.tutes, 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.