Chapter III Cases, or Nouns.
The rules for the construction of Nouns, or Cases, are seven; hence this chapter, according to the order adopted above, reviews the series of rules from the second rule to the eighth, inclusively. Though Nouns are here the topic, all these seven rules apply alike to Nouns and to Pronouns; that is, to all the words of our language which are susceptible of Cases.
Rule Ii.—Nominatives.
A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case: as, "The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and they derided him."—Luke, xvi, 14. "But where the meekness of self-knowledge veileth the front of self-respect, there look thou for the man whom none can know but they will honour."—Book of Thoughts, p. 66.
"Dost thou mourn Philander's fate?
I know thou sayst it: says thy life the same?"
—Young, N. ii, l. 22.
Observations on Rule II.
OBS. 1.—To this rule, there are no exceptions; and nearly all nominatives, or far the greater part, are to be parsed by it. There are however four different ways of disposing of the nominative case. First, it is generally the subject of a verb, according to Rule 2d. Secondly, it may be put in apposition with an other nominative, according to Rule 3d. Thirdly, it may be put after a verb or a participle not transitive, according to Rule 6th. Fourthly, it may be put absolute, or may help to form a phrase that is independent of the rest of the sentence, according to Rule 8th.
OBS. 2.—The subject, or nominative, is generally placed before the verb; as, "Peace dawned upon his mind."—Johnson. "What is written in the law?"—Bible. But, in the following nine cases, the subject of the verb is usually placed after it, or after the first auxiliary: 1. When a question is asked without an interrogative pronoun in the nominative case; as, "Shall mortals be implacable?"—Hooke. "What art thou doing?"—Id. "How many loaves have ye?"—Bible. "Are they Israelites? so am I."—Ib.
2. When the verb is in the imperative mood; as, "Go thou"—"Come ye" But, with this mood, the pronoun is very often omitted and understood; as, "Philip saith unto him, Come and see"—John, i, 46. "And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted."—Mark, xvi, 5.
3. When an earnest wish, or other strong feeling, is expressed; as, "May she be happy!"—"How were we struck!"—Young. "Not as the world giveth, give I unto you."—Bible.
4. When a supposition is made without the conjunction if; as, "Had they known it;" for, "If they had known it."—"Were it true;" for, "If it were true."—"Could we draw by the covering of the grave;" for, "If we could draw," &c.
5. When neither or nor, signifying and not, precedes the verb; as, "This was his fear; nor was his apprehension groundless."—"Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it."—Gen., iii, 3.
6. When, for the sake of emphasis, some word or words are placed before the verb, which more naturally come after it; as, "Here am I."—"Narrow is the way."—"Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have, give I thee."—Bible.
7. When the verb has no regimen, and is itself emphatical; as, "Echo the mountains round."—Thomson. "After the Light Infantry marched the Grenadiers, then followed the Horse."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. 71.
8. When the verbs, say, answer, reply, and the like, introduce the parts of a dialogue; as, "'Son of affliction,' said Omar, 'who art thou?' 'My name,' replied the stranger, 'is Hassan.'"—Dr. Johnson.
9. When the adverb there precedes the verb; as, "There lived a man."—Montgomery. "In all worldly joys, there is a secret wound."—Owen. This use of there, the general introductory adverb of place, is idiomatic, and somewhat different from the use of the same word in reference to a particular locality; as, "Because there was not much water there."—John, iii, 23.
OBS. 3.—In exclamations, and some other forms of expression, a few verbs are liable to be suppressed, the ellipsis being obvious; as, "How different [is] this from the philosophy of Greece and Rome!"—DR. BEATTIE: Murray's Sequel, p. 127. "What a lively picture [is here] of the most disinterested and active benevolence!"—HERVEY: ib., p. 94. "When Adam [spake] thus to Eve."—MILTON: Paradise Lost, B. iv, l. 610.
OBS. 4.—Though we often use nouns in the nominative case to show whom we address, yet the imperative verb takes no other nominative of the second person, than the simple personal pronoun, thou, ye, or you, expressed or understood. It would seem that some, who ought to know better, are liable to mistake for the subject of such a verb, the noun which we put absolute in the nominative by direct address. Of this gross error, the following is an example: "Study boys. In this sentence," (says its author,) "study is a verb of the second person, plural number, and agrees with its nominative case, boys—according to the rule: A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person. Boys is a noun of the second person, plural number, masculine gender, in the nominative case to the verb study."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 17.[339] Now the fact is, that this laconic address, of three syllables, is written wrong; being made bad English for want of a comma between the two words. Without this mark, boys must be an objective, governed by study; and with it, a nominative, put absolute by direct address. But, in either case, study agrees with ye or you understood, and has not the noun for its subject, or nominative.
OBS. 5.—Some authors say, and if the first person be no exception, say truly: "The nominative case to a verb, unless it be a pronoun, is always of the third person."—Churchill's Gram., p. 141. But W. B. Fowle will have all pronouns to be adjectives. Consequently all his verbs, of every sort, agree with nouns "expressed or understood." This, and every other absurd theory of language, can easily be made out, by means of a few perversions, which may be called corrections, and a sufficient number of interpolations, made under pretence of filling up ellipses. Thus, according to this author, "They fear," means, "They things spoken of fear."—True Eng. Gram., p, 33. And, "John, open the door," or, "Boys, stop your noise," admits no comma. And, "Be grateful, ye children," and, "Be ye grateful children," are, in his view, every way equivalent: the comma in the former being, in his opinion, needless. See ib., p. 39.
OBS. 6.—Though the nominative and objective cases of nouns do not differ in form, it is nevertheless, in the opinion of many of our grammarians, improper to place any noun in both relations at once, because this produces a confusion in the syntax of the word. Examples: "He then goes on to declare that there are, and distinguish of, four manners of saying Per se."—Walker's Treatise of Particles, p. xii. Better: "He then proceeds to show, that per se is susceptible of four different senses." "In just allegory and similitude there is always a propriety, or, if you choose to call it, congruity, in the literal sense, as well as a distinct meaning or sentiment suggested, which is called the figurative sense."—Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 291. Better: "In just allegory or similitude, there is always a propriety—or, if you choose to call it so, a congruity—in the literal sense," &c. "It must then be meant of his sins who makes, not of his who becomes, the convert."—Atterbury's Sermons, i, 2. Better: "It must then be meant of his sins who makes the convert, not of his who becomes converted." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."—1 Cor., ii, 9. A more regular construction would be: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." The following example, from Pope, may perhaps be conceded to the poet, as an allowable ellipsis of the words "a friend," after is:
"In who obtain defence, or who defend;
In him who is, or him who finds, a friend."
—Essay on Man, Ep. iv, l. 60.
Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, "There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective case."—Lowth's Gram., p. 73. He should have said—"of both the nominative and the objective case." Dr. Webster, citing the line, "In him who is, and him who finds, a friend," adds, "Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but without reason, as the cases are not distinguished in English."—Improved Gram., p. 175.
OBS. 7.—In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned the subject of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule—or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative. This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb. Example: "[Greek: Eipen auton phonæthænai]."—Mark, x, 49. "Ait illum vocari."—Leusden. "Jussit eum vocari."—Beza. "Præcepit illum vocari."—Vulgate. "He commanded him to be called."—English Bible. "He commanded that he should be called."—Milnes's Gr. Gram., p. 143. "Il dit qu'on l'appelât."—French Bible. "He bid that somebody should call him." "Il commanda qu'on le fît venir."—Nouveau Test., Paris, 1812. "He commanded that they should make him come;" that is, "lead him, or bring him." "Il commanda qu'on l'appelât."—De Sacy's N. Test.
OBS. 8.—In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition. Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. "Gaudeo te val=ere," "I am glad that thou art well," cannot be translated more literally; because, "I am glad thee to be well," would not be good English. "Aiunt regem advent=are," "They say the king is coming," may be otherwise rendered "They declare the king to be coming;" but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of aiunt, say, into such a verb as will govern the noun.
OBS. 9.—The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: "But experience teacheth us, both these opinions to be alike ridiculous."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, "But experience teaches us, that both these opinions are alike ridiculous." The verbs believe, think, imagine, and others expressing mental action, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: "RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] 'I believe your brother to be a good man.' Here believe does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. Brother, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb to be, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular."—S. Barrett's Gram., p. 135. This author teaches that, "The infinitive mode agrees with the objective case in number and person."—Ibid. Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun brother, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb believe, and the subject of the neuter infinitive to be, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.
OBS. 10.—There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: "The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, 'Suffer me to depart.'" [340]—English Parser, p. 34. "When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as 'I understood it to be him,' 'Suffer me to depart,' such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, the subject of it. The reason of this is—the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive following, and not governed by the former verb; as, in that instance, it would be governing two objects."—Ib., Note.[341]
OBS. 11.—The notion that one verb governs an other in the infinitive, just as a transitive verb governs a noun, and so that it cannot also govern an objective case, is not only contradictory to my scheme of parsing the infinitive mood, but is also false in itself, and repugnant to the principles of General Grammar. In Greek and Latin, it is certainly no uncommon thing for a verb to govern two cases at once; and even the accusative before the infinitive is sometimes governed by the preceding verb, as the objective before the infinitive naturally is in English. But, in regard to construction, every language differs more or less from every other; hence each must have its own syntax, and abide by its own rules. In regard to the point here in question, the reader may compare the following examples: "[Greek: Echo anagkæn exelthein]."—Luke, xiv, 18. "Habeo necesse exire."—Leusden. English: "I have occasion to go away." Again: "[Greek: O echon hota akouein, akoueto]."—Luke, xiv, 35. "Habens aures audiendi, audiat."—Leusden. "Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat."—Beza. English: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." But our most frequent use of the infinitive after the objective, is in sentences that must not be similarly constructed in Latin or Greek;[342] as, "And he commanded the porter to watch."—Mark, xiii, 34. "And he delivered Jesus to be crucified."—Mark, xv, 15. "And they led him out to crucify him."—Mark, xv, 20. "We heard him say."—Mark, xiv, 58. "That I might make thee know."—Prov., xxii, 21.
OBS. 12.—If our language does really admit any thing like the accusative before the infinitive, in the sense of a positive subject at the head of a clause, it is only in some prospective descriptions like the following: "Let certain studies be prescribed to be pursued during the freshman year; some of these to be attended to by the whole class; with regard to others, a choice to be allowed; which, when made by the student, (the parent or guardian sanctioning it,) to be binding during the freshman year: the same plan to be adopted with regard to the studies of the succeeding years."—GALLAUDET: Journal of the N. Y. Literary Convention, p. 118. Here the four words, some, choice, which, and plan, may appear to a Latinist to be so many objectives, or accusatives, placed before infinitives, and used to describe that state of things which the author would promote. If objectives they are, we may still suppose them to be governed by let, would have, or something of the kind, understood: as, "Let some of these be attended to;" or, "Some of these I would have to be attended to," &c. The relative which might with more propriety be made nominative, by changing "to be binding" to "shall be binding;" and as to the rest, it is very doubtful whether they are not now nominatives, rather than objectives. The infinitive, as used above, is a mere substitute for the Latin future participle; and any English noun or pronoun put absolute with a participle, is in the nominative case. English relatives are rarely, if ever, put absolute in this manner: and this may be the reason why the construction of which, in the sentence above, seems awkward. Besides, it is certain that the other pronouns are sometimes put absolute with the infinitive; and that, in the nominative case, not the objective: as,
"And I to be a corporal in his field,
And wear his colours like a tumbler's hoop!
What? I! I love! I sue! I seek a wife!"—Shak., Love's Labour Lost.
Improprieties for Correction.
False Syntax under Rule II.
The Subject of a Finite Verb.
"The whole need not a physician, but them that are sick."—Bunyan's Law and Gr., p. iv.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the objective pronoun them is here made the subject of the verb need, understood. But, according to Rule 2d, "A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case." Therefore, them should be they; thus, "The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."]
"He will in no wise cast out whomsoever cometh unto him."—Robert Hall "He feared the enemy might fall upon his men, whom he saw were off their guard."—Hutchinson's Massachusetts, ii, 133. "Whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."—Dymond's Essays, p. 48. "The idea's of the author have been conversant with the faults of other writers."—Swift's T. T., p. 55. "You are a much greater loser than me by his death."—Swift to Pope, l. 63. "Such peccadillo's pass with him for pious frauds."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 279. "In whom I am nearly concerned, and whom I know would be very apt to justify my whole procedure."—Ib., i, 560. "Do not think such a man as me contemptible for my garb."—Addison. "His wealth and him bid adieu to each other."—Priestley's Gram., p. 107. "So that, 'He is greater than me,' will be more grammatical than, 'He is greater than I.'"—Ib., p. 106. "The Jesuits had more interests at court than him."—SMOLLETT: in Pr. Gram., p. 106.[343] "Tell the Cardinal that I understand poetry better than him."—Id., ib. "An inhabitant of Crim Tartary was far more happy than him."—Id., ib. "My father and him have been very intimate since."—Fair American, ii, 53. "Who was the agent, and whom the object struck or kissed?"—Infant School Gram., p. 32. "To find the person whom he imagined was concealed there."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 225. "He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him."—HUME: in Pr. Gram., p. 104. "They would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might exercise the right of judgement."—Gov. Haynes's Speech, in 1832. "They had promised to accept whomsoever should be born in Wales."—Stories by Croker. "We sorrow not as them that have no hope."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 27. "If he suffers, he suffers as them that have no hope."—Ib., p. 32. "We acknowledge that he, and him only, hath been our peacemaker."—Gratton. "And what can be better than him that made it?"—Jenks's Prayers, p. 329. "None of his school-fellows is more beloved than him."—Cooper's Gram., p. 42. "Solomon, who was wiser than them all."—Watson's Apology, p. 76. "Those whom the Jews thought were the last to be saved, first entered the kingdom of God."—Eleventh Hour, Tract, No. 4. "A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both."—Prov., xxvii, 3. "A man of business, in good company, is hardly more insupportable than her they call a notable woman."—Steele, Sped. "The king of the Sarmatians, whom we may imagine was no small prince, restored him a hundred thousand Roman prisoners."—Life of Antoninus, p. 83. "Such notions would be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as them."—Bolingbroke's Ph. Tr., p. 24. "Unless, as I said, Messieurs, you are the masters, and not me."—BASIL HALL: Harrison's E. Lang., p. 173. "We had drawn up against peaceable travellers, who must have been as glad as us to escape."—BURNES'S TRAVELS: ibid. "Stimulated, in turn, by their approbation, and that of better judges than them, she turned to their literature with redoubled energy."—QUARTERLY REVIEW: Life of H. More: ibid. "I know not whom else are expected."—SCOTT'S PIRATE: ibid. "He is great, but truth is greater than us all."—Horace Mann, in Congress, 1850. "Him I accuse has entered."—Fowler's E. Gram., §482: see Shakspeare's Coriolanus, Act V, sc. 5.
"Scotland and thee did each in other live."
—Dryden's Po., Vol. ii, p. 220.
"We are alone; here's none but thee and I."
—Shak., 2 Hen. VI.
"Me rather had, my heart might feel your love,
Than my unpleas'd eye see your courtesy."
—Idem: Joh. Dict.
"Tell me, in sadness, whom is she you love?"
—Id., Romeo and Juliet, A. I, sc. 1.
"Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire
Too high a fame, when him we serve's away."
—Shak., Ant. and Cleop.
Rule Iii.—Apposition.
A Noun or a personal Pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case: as, "But it is really I, your old friend and neighbour., Piso, late a dweller upon the Coelian hill, who am now basking in the warm skies of Palmyra."—Zenobia.
"But he, our gracious Master, kind as just,
Knowing our frame, remembers we are dust."—Barbauld.
Observations on Rule III.
OBS. 1—Apposition is that peculiar relation which one noun or pronoun bears to an other, when two or more are placed together in the same case, and used to designate the same person or thing: as, "Cicero the orator;"—"The prophet Joel;"—"He of Gath, Goliah;"—"Which ye yourselves do know;"—"To make him king;"—"To give his life a ransom for many;"—"I made the ground my bed;"—"I, thy schoolmaster;"—"We the People of the United States." This placing-together of nouns and pronouns in the same case, was reckoned by the old grammarians a figure of syntax; and from them it received, in their elaborate detail of the grammatical and rhetorical figures, its present name of apposition. They reckoned it a species of ellipsis, and supplied between the words, the participle being, the infinitive to be, or some other part of their "substantive verb:" as, "Cicero being the orator;"—"To make him to be king;"—"I who am thy schoolmaster." But the later Latin grammarians have usually placed it among their regular concords; some calling it the first concord, while others make it the last, in the series; and some, with no great regard to consistency, treating it both as a figure and as a regular concord, at the same time.
OBS. 2.—Some English grammarians teach, "that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb to be, may be said to be in apposition to each other."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 181; R. C. Smith's, 155; Fisk's, 126; Ingersoll's, 146; Merchant's, 91. But this is entirely repugnant to the doctrine, that apposition is a figure; nor is it at all consistent with the original meaning of the word apposition; because it assumes that the literal reading, when the supposed ellipsis is supplied, is apposition still. The old distinction, however, between apposition and same cases, is generally preserved in our grammars, and is worthy ever to be so. The rule for same cases applies to all nouns or pronouns that are put after verbs or participles not transitive, and that are made to agree in case with other nouns or pronouns going before, and meaning the same thing. But some teachers who observe this distinction with reference to the neuter verb be, and to certain passive verbs of naming, appointing, and the like, absurdly break it down in relation to other verbs, neuter or active-intransitive. Thus Nixon: "Nouns in apposition are in the same case; as, 'Hortensius died a martyr;' 'Sydney lived the shepherd's friend.'"—English Parser, p. 55. It is remarkable that all this author's examples of "nominatives in apposition," (and he gives eighteen in the exercise,) are precisely of this sort, in which there is really no apposition at all.
OBS. 3.—In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the explanatory term; because the case of the principal term depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule. In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which might be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation. Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, William Pitt—Marcus Tullius Cicero. It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, Lord Bacon—Sir Isaac Newton. William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of "George Washington," absurdly take the former word as an adjective belonging to the latter. See Russell's Gram., p. 100; and Ware's, 17. R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names. See his New Gram., p. 97. And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, "John Wickliffe's influence," "Robert Bruce's exertions," and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives in apposition with the former. See Nixon's English Parser, p. 59. Wm. B. Fowle, in his "True English Grammar," takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives. According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language. A later writer than any of these says, "The proper noun is philosophically an adjective. Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, may be parsed as adjectives, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, President Madison,—Doctor Johnson,—Mr. Webster,—Esq. Carleton,—Miss Gould,—Professor Ware,—lake Erie,—the Pacific ocean,—Franklin House,—Union street."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 134. I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a man's name in parsing it. A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately: for example, that wonderful doctor, Paracelsus, who called himself, "Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim."—Univ. Biog. Dict.
OBS. 4.—A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: "Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 156. The same has also been applied to our language: "Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of pronouns seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes "signify" or "denote" the same thing. Thus, "the city of London," means only the city London; "the land of Egypt," is only Egypt; and "the person of Richard" is Richard himself. Dr. Webster defines apposition to be, "The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them."—Octavo Dict. This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, "Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law."—Ezra, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."—Acts, ii, 36. "Who made me a judge or a divider over you."—Luke, xii, 14. Thirdly, the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by and, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, "This great philosopher and statesman was bred a printer." Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by as, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."—2 Thess., iii, 15. "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God."—Ib., ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by than; as, "He left them no more than dead men."—Law and Grace, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by or; as, "The back of the hedgehog is covered with prickles, or spines."—Webster's Dict.
OBS. 5.—To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly no exceptions. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,
"From bright'ning fields of ether fair disclos'd, Child of the sun, refulgent Summer comes."—Thomson.
OBS. 6.—The pronouns of the first and second persons are often placed before nouns merely to distinguish their person; as, "I John saw these things."—Bible. "But what is this to you receivers?"—Clarkson's Essay on Slavery, p. 108. "His praise, ye brooks, attune."—Thomson. In this case of apposition, the words are in general closely united, and either of them may be taken as the explanatory term. The learner will find it easier to parse the noun by rule third; or both nouns, if there be two: as, "I thy father-in-law Jethro am come unto thee."—Exod., xviii, 6. There are many other examples, in which it is of no moment, which of the terms we take for the principal; and to all such the rule may be applied literally: as, "Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee."—2 Kings, viii, 9.
OBS. 7.—When two or more nouns of the possessive case are put in apposition, the possessive termination added to one, denotes the case of both or all; as, "For Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife"—Matt., xiv, 3; Mark, vi, 17. Here wife is in apposition with Herodias', and brother with Philip's; consequently all these words are reckoned to be in the possessive case. The Greek text, which is better, stands essentially thus: "For the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother." "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect."—Isaiah, xlv, 4. Here, as Jacob and Israel are only different names for the same person or nation, the four nouns in Italics are, according to the rule, all made possessives by the one sign used; but the construction is not to be commended: it would be better to say, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, and Israel mine elect." "With Hyrcanus the high priest's consent."—Wood's Dict., w. Herod. "I called at Smith's, the bookseller; or, at Smith the bookseller's."— Bullions's E. Gram., p. 105. Two words, each having the possessive sign, can never be in apposition one with the other; because that sign has immediate reference to the governing noun expressed or understood after it; and if it be repeated, separate governing nouns will be implied, and the apposition will be destroyed.[344]
OBS. 8.—If the foregoing remark is just, the apposition of two nouns in the possessive case, requires the possessive sign to be added to that noun which immediately precedes the governing word, whether expressed or understood, and positively excludes it from the other. The sign of the case is added, sometimes to the former, and sometimes to the latter noun, but never to both: or, if added to both, the two words are no longer in apposition. Example: "And for that reason they ascribe to him a great part of his father Nimrod's, or Belus's actions."—Rollin's An. Hist., Vol. ii, p. 6. Here father and Nimrod's are in strict apposition; but if actions governs Belus's, the same word is implied to govern Nimrod's, and the two names are not in apposition, though they are in the same case and mean the same person.
OBS. 9.—Dr. Priestley says, "Some would say, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's, the bookseller;' others, 'at Mr. Smith the bookseller's;' and perhaps others, at 'Mr. Smith's the bookseller's.' The last of these forms is most agreeable to the Latin idiom, but the first seems to be more natural in ours; and if the addition consist [consists, says Murray,] of two or more words, the case seems to be very clear; as, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's the bookseller and stationer;' i. e. at Mr. Smith's, who is a bookseller and stationer."—Priestley's Gram., p. 70. Here the examples, if rightly pointed, would all be right; but the ellipsis supposed, not only destroys the apposition, but converts the explanatory noun into a nominative. And in the phrase, "at Mr. Smiths, the bookseller's," there is no apposition, except that of Mr. with Smith's; for the governing noun house or store is understood as clearly after the one possessive sign as after the other. Churchill imagines that in Murray's example, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor," the last two nouns are in the nominative after "who was" understood; and also erroneously suggests, that their joint apposition with Stormont's might be secured, by saying, less elegantly, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor's."— Churchill's New Gram., p. 285. Lindley Murray, who tacitly takes from Priestley all that is quoted above, except the term "Mr.," and the notion of an ellipsis of "who is," assumes each of the three forms as an instance of apposition, but pronounces the first only to be "correct and proper." If, then, the first is elliptical, as Priestley suggests, and the others are ungrammatical, as Murray pretends to prove, we cannot have in reality any such construction as the apposition of two possessives; for the sign of the case cannot possibly be added in more than these three ways. But Murray does not adhere at all to his own decision, as may be seen by his subsequent remarks and examples, on the same page; as, "The emperor Leopold's;"—"Dionysius the tyrant's;"—"For David my servant's sake;"—"Give me here John the Baptist's head;"—"Paul the apostle's advice." See Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 176; Smith's New Gram., p. 150; and others.
OBS. 10.—An explanatory noun without the possessive sign, seems sometimes to be put in apposition with a pronoun of the possessive case; and, if introduced by the conjunction as, it may either precede or follow the pronoun: thus, "I rejoice in your success as an instructer."— Sanborn's Gram., p. 244. "As an author, his 'Adventurer' is his capital work."—Murray's Sequel, p. 329.
"Thus shall mankind his guardian care engage,
The promised father of a future age."—Pope.
But possibly such examples may be otherwise explained on the principle of ellipsis; as, [He being] "the promised father," &c. "As [he was] an author," &c. "As [you are] an instructer."
OBS. 11.—When a noun or pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis, or for the adding of an epithet, the word which is repeated may properly be said to be in apposition with that which is first introduced; or, if not, the repetition itself implies sameness of case: as, "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."—Jer., ii, 13.
"I find the total of their hopes and fears Dreams, empty dreams."—Cowper's Task, p. 71.
OBS. 12.—A noun is sometimes put, as it were, in apposition to a sentence; being used (perhaps elliptically) to sum up the whole idea in one emphatic word, or short phrase. But, in such instances, the noun can seldom be said to have any positive relation that may determine its case; and, if alone, it will of course be in the nominative, by reason of its independence. Examples: "He permitted me to consult his library—a kindness which I shall not forget."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 148. "I have offended reputation—a most unnoble swerving."—Shakspeare. "I want a hero,—an uncommon want."—Byron. "Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself; a discovery which the poet probably never made before."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 280.
"In Christian hearts O for a pagan zeal!
A needful, but opprobrious prayer!"—Young, N. ix, l. 995.
"Great standing miracle, that Heav'n assign'd
Its only thinking thing this turn of mind."—Pope.
OBS. 13.—A distributive term in the singular number, is frequently construed in apposition with a comprehensive plural; as, "They reap vanity, every one with his neighbour."—Bible. "Go ye every man unto his city."—Ibid. So likewise with two or more singular nouns which are taken conjointly; as, "The Son and Spirit have each his proper office."—Butler's Analogy, p. 163. And sometimes a plural word is emphatically put after a series of particulars comprehended under it; as, "Ambition, interest, glory, all concurred."—Letters on Chivalry, p. 11. "Royalists, republicans, churchmen, sectaries, courtiers, patriots, all parties concurred in the illusion."—Hume's History, Vol. viii, p. 73. The foregoing examples are plain, but similar expressions sometimes require care, lest the distributive or collective term be so placed that its construction and meaning may be misapprehended. Examples: "We have turned every one to his own way."—Isaiah, liii, 6. Better: "We have every one turned to his own way." "For in many things we offend all."—James, iii, 2. Better: "For in many things we all offend." The latter readings doubtless convey the true sense of these texts. To the relation of apposition, it may be proper also to refer the construction of a singular noun taken in a distributive sense and repeated after by to denote order; as, "They went out one by one."—Bible. "Our whole company, man by man, ventured in."—Goldsmith. "To examine a book, page by page; to search a place, house by house."—Ward's Gram., p. 106. So too, perhaps, when the parts of a thing explain the whole; as,
"But those that sleep, and think not on their sins,
Pinch them, arms, legs, backs, shoulders, sides, and shins."
—Shak.
OBS. 14.—To express a reciprocal action or relation, the pronominal adjectives each other and one an other are employed: as, "They love each other;"—"They love one an other." The words, separately considered, are singular; but, taken together, they imply plurality; and they can be properly construed only after plurals, or singulars taken conjointly. Each other is usually applied to two persons or things; and one an other, to more than two. The impropriety of applying them otherwise, is noticed elsewhere; (see, in Part II, Obs. 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives;) so that we have here to examine only their relations of case. The terms, though reciprocal and closely united, are seldom or never in the same construction. If such expressions be analyzed, each and one will generally appear to be in the nominative case, and other in the objective; as, "They love each other;" i. e. each loves the other. "They love one an other;" i. e. any or every one loves any or every other. Each and one (—if the words be taken as cases, and not adjectively—) are properly in agreement or apposition with they, and other is governed by the verb. The terms, however, admit of other constructions; as, "Be ye helpers one of an other."—Bible. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other is governed by of. "Ye are one an other's joy."—Ib. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other's is in the possessive case, being governed by joy. "Love will make you one an other's joy." Here one is in the objective case, being in apposition with you, and other's is governed as before. "Men's confidence in one an other;"—"Their dependence one upon an other." Here the word one appears to be in apposition with the possessive going before; for it has already been shown, that words standing in that relation never take the possessive sign. But if its location after the preposition must make it objective, the whole object is the complex term, "one an other." "Grudge not one against an other."—James, v, 9. "Ne vous plaignez point les uns des autres."—French Bible. "Ne suspirate alius adversus alium."—Beza. "Ne ingemiscite adversus alii alios."—Leusden. "[Greek: Mæ stenazete kat hallælon]."—Greek New Testament.
OBS. 15.—The construction of the Latin terms alius alium, alii alios, &c., with that of the French l'un l'autre, l'un de l'autre, &c., appears, at first view, sufficiently to confirm the doctrine of the preceding observation; but, besides the frequent use, in Latin and Greek, of a reciprocal adverb to express the meaning of one an other or each other, there are, from each of these languages, some analogical arguments for taking the English terms together as compounds. The most common term in Greek for one an other, ([Greek: Hallælon], dat. [Greek: hallælois, ais, ois], acc. [Greek: hallælous]: ab [Greek: hallos], alius,) is a single derivative word, the case of which is known by its termination; and each other is sometimes expressed in Latin by a compound: as, "Et osculantes se alterutrum, fleverunt pariter."—Vulgate. That is: "And kissing each other, they wept together." As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: "And they kissed one an other, and wept one with an other"—1 Sam., xx, 41. Alter-utrum is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like each-other; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to parse each other and one an other otherwise than as compounds: as, "He only recommended this, and not the washing of one another's feet."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 143.
"The Temple late two brother sergeants saw,
Who deem'd each other oracles of law."—Pope, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]
OBS. 16.—The common and the proper name of an object are very often associated, and put in apposition; as, "The river Thames,"—"The ship Albion,"—"The poet Cowper"—"Lake Erie,"—"Cape May"—"Mount Atlas." But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by of; as, "The city of New York,"—"The land of Canaan,"—"The island of Cuba,"—"The peninsula of Yucatan." Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, "That the city Sepphoris should be subordinate to the city Tiberias."—Life of Josephus, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition of is at least needless: "The law delighteth herself in the number of twelve; and the number of twelve is much respected in holy writ."—Coke, on Juries. Two or three late grammarians, supposing of always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, "The city of London, the city of New Haven, the month of March, the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns of Exeter and Dover," than to say, "King of Solomon, Titus of the Roman Emperor, Paul of the apostle, or, Cicero of the orator."—See Barrett's Gram., p. 101; Emmons's, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar. Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, "in the city of New Haven."—Gram., p. 19.
OBS. 17.—When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the passive: as, "They named the child John;"—"The child was named John."—"They elected him president;"—"He was elected president." After the active verb, the acquired name must be parsed by Rule 3d; after the passive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the pronominal adjective some, or the noun men understood after it, is the direct object of the verb gave, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"—Ephesians, iv, 11. That is, "He bestowed some [men] as apostles; and some as prophets; and some as evangelists; and some as pastors and teachers." The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take some to be either a dative case, meaning to some persons, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with some, or some men, in what the Latins call the accusative, case. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of as, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.
OBS. 18.—Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: "The Franks, a people of Germany."—W. Allen's Gram. "The Kenite tribe, the descendants of Hobab."—Milman's Hist. of the Jews. "But how can you a soul, still either hunger or thirst?"—Lucian's Dialogues, p. 14. "Who seized the wife of me his host, and fled."—Ib., p. 16.
"Thy gloomy grandeurs (Nature's most august.
Inspiring aspect!) claim a grateful verse."—Young, N. ix, l. 566.
Improprieties for Correction.
False Syntax under Rule III.
Errors of Words in Apposition.
"Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou."—Gen., xxxi, 44.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronouns I and thou, of the nominative case, are here put in apposition with the preceding pronoun us, which is objective. But, according to Rule 3d, "A noun or a personal pronoun, used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case." Therefore, I and thou should be thee and me; (the first person, in our idiom, being usually put last;) thus, "Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, thee and me."]
"Now, therefore, come thou, we will make a covenant, thee and me."—Variation of Gen. "The word came not to Esau, the hunter, that stayed not at home; but to Jacob, the plain man, he that dwelt in tents."—Wm. Penn. "Not to every man, but to the man of God, (i. e.) he that is led by the spirit of God."—Barclays Works, i, 266. "For, admitting God to be a creditor, or he to whom the debt should be paid, and Christ he that satisfies or pays it on behalf of man the debtor, this question will arise, whether he paid that debt as God, or man, or both?"—Wm. Penn. "This Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly Man, the Emmanuel, God with us, we own and believe in: he whom the high priests raged against," &c.—George Fox. "Christ, and Him crucified, was the Alpha and Omega of all his addresses, the fountain and foundation of his hope and trust."—Experience of Paul, p. 399. "'Christ and Him crucified' is the head, and only head, of the church."—Denison's Sermon. "But if 'Christ and Him crucified' are the burden of the ministry, such disastrous results are all avoided."—Ib. "He never let fall the least intimation, that himself, or any other person, whomsoever, was the object of worship."—Hannah Adams's View, p. 250. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."—1 Tim., v, 17. "Our Shepherd, him who is styled King of saints, will assuredly give his saints the victory."—Sermon. "It may seem odd to talk of we subscribers"—Fowlers True Eng. Gram., p. 20. "And they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; for I will pour their wickedness upon them."—Jeremiah, xiv, 16. "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants."—Philippians, ii, 25.
"Amidst the tumult of the routed train,
The sons of false Antimachus were slain;
He, who for bribes his faithless counsels sold,
And voted Helen's stay for Paris' gold."
—Pope, Iliad, B. xi. l. 161.
"See the vile King his iron sceptre bear—
His only praise attends the pious Heir;
He, in whose soul the virtues all conspire,
The best good son, from the worst wicked sire."
—DR. LOWTH: Union Poems, p. 19.
"Then from thy lips poured forth a joyful song
To thy Redeemer!—yea, it poured along
In most melodious energy of praise,
To God, the Saviour, he of ancient days."
—Arm Chair, p. 15.
Rule Iv.—Possessives.
A Noun or a Pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed: as, "God's mercy prolongs man's life."—Allen.
"Theirs is the vanity, the learning thine; Touched by thy hand, again Rome's glories shine."—Pope.
Observations on Rule IV.
OBS. 1.—Though the ordinary syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny. But how many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might be plausibly exhibited in that character. Two of these would concern only the parser; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important. The other involves the approval or reprehension of a great multitude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; first, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; secondly, the government of the possessive case after is, was, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; thirdly, the government of the possessive by a participle, as such—that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle.
OBS. 2.—The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, "For David my servant's sake,") might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs the one, virtually governs the other. And if the case of any noun or pronoun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third. If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians have differed in the same way before. Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such perhaps is the following: "At Mr. Smith's [who is] the bookseller."—See Dr. Priestley's Gram., p. 71.
OBS. 3.—In all our Latin grammars, the verb sum, fui, esse, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to signify possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, "Est regis;"—"It is the king's."—"Hominis est errare;"—"It is man's to err."—"Pecus est Melibœi;"—"The flock is Meliboeus's." And sometimes, with like import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, "Ego [sum] dilecto meo, et dilectus meus [est] mihi."—Vulgate. "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."—Solomon's Song, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from analogy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after sum or est, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some noun understood; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word beloved's or mine is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, "There shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel."—Exod., ix, 4. The Latin here is, "Ut nihil omnino pereat ex his quæ pertinent ad filios Israel."—Vulgate. That is,—"of all those which belong to the children of Israel."
"For thou art Freedom's now—and Fame's,
One of the few, the immortal names,
That were not born to die."—HALLECK: Marco Bozzaris.
OBS. 4.—Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an adjunct and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,—that is, with an actual separation from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine."—John, xvii, 10. For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be something more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, "For all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."—1 Cor., iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (be,) might be parsed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose "theirs" to be governed by "vanity," and "thine" by "learning," these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a pronoun happens to be the nominative; as, "Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's"—1 Cor., vi, 20. Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed."—Gal., iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning to be, "If ye be Christ's seed, or children." But a truer version of the text would be, "If ye are of Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed."—"Que si vous êtes à Christ, vous êtes done la posterité d'Abraham."—French Bible.
OBS. 5.—Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood substantively—that is, to "the name of the thing possessed." Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a participle, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen. Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray's code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an article before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the pronoun and participle: as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule, and error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it;" in stead of, "their observing the rule," and "their neglecting it." And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the noun and participle; as if the error were still more glaring, to make an active participle govern a possessive noun; saying, "We shall perceive this more clearly, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, 'Much depends upon Tyro's observing of the rule,' &c.; which is the same as, 'Much depends on Tyro's observance of the rule.' But, as this construction sounds rather harshly, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: 'Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected? or—'on observing the rule; and—of neglecting it.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 193; Ingersoll's, 199; and others.
OBS. 6.—Here it is assumed, that "their observing the rule," or "Tyro's observing the rule," is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself. The last form offered, "on observing the rule," &c., is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a substitute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient. It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the participle undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent of the action, or the subject of the being or passion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idiom of our language as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See Smith's New Grammar, pp. 152 and 162; Comly's Gram., 91 and 108; Ingersoll's, 180 and 199.
OBS. 7.—Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions. The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says: "There is only one other observation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. 'Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected. For here is a noun and a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without other noun to govern it: for being observed, and being neglected, are not nouns: nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition of before the noun or pronoun.'[346] For my part," continues Campbell, "notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression."—Philosophy of Rhetoric, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.
OBS. 8.—Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming "one compound noun." I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case. I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove. In view of the two examples, "Much depends upon the rule's being observed," and, "Much depends upon their observing of the rule," he says: "Now, although I allow both the modes of expression to be good, I think the first simpler and better than the second." Then, denying all faults, he proceeds: "Let us consider whether the former be liable to any objections, which do not equally affect the latter." But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lowth, which indeed he sufficiently refutes. Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded. In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in meaning; hence the preference suggested by this critic and others, is absurd. Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer. If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure: as, "Much depends on an observance of the rule."—"Much depends on their observance of the rule." Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, vice versa: that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other.[347]
OBS. 9.—From Dr. Campbell's commendation of Lowth, as having "given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,"—that is, between the participial noun and the participle,—it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: "Much will depend on your pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently."—Philos. of Rhet., p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be "correct and proper." But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb "frequently" qualify the verb "will depend" expressed in the sentence? or "will depend" understood after more? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of "reading?" or the action of "composing?" or both? or neither? But composing and reading, if they are mere nouns, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives. Besides, composing, as a participle, is commonly transitive; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon of, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, "Much will depend on your pupil's composing of themes; but more, on his frequent reading." This may not be the author's meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of "experiment;" and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher. But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, "Much will depend on an author's using, but more on his learning frequently." Yet is it commended as a model, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.
OBS. 10.—That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form "one name" or "substantive phrase," and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author. For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar it stands thus: "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case. Thus, instead of saying, What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train, i. e. what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train, we may say, What is the meaning of this lady's holding up her train; just as we say, What is the meaning of this lady's dress, &c. So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Priestley's Gram., p. 69. Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly. Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction. His only note on this point,—a note about the "horse running to-day," and the "horse's running to-day,"—I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.
OBS. 11.—Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite from L. Murray's code a paragraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun. "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, 'What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily?' that is, 'What is the reason of this person, in dismissing his servant so hastily?' we may say, and perhaps ought to say, 'What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so hastily?' Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant?' So also, we say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or more properly, 'I remember its being reckoned,' &c. The following sentence is correct and proper: 'Much will depend on the pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently.' It would not be accurate to say, 'Much will depend on the pupil composing.' &c. We also properly say; 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently;' instead of, 'Of the pupil composing frequently.' The participle, in such constructions, does the office of a substantive; and it should therefore have a CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN."—Murray's Gram., Rule 10th, Note 7; Ingersoll's, p. 180; Fisk's, 108; R. C. Smith's, 152; Alger's, 61; Merchant's, 84. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 150; "Abridged Ed.," 117.[348]
OBS. 12.—Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or (what amounts to the same thing) a phrase beginning with a participle, ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and others, is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it among the most puzzling points of grammar. Let it be observed, that what these writers absurdly call "an entire CLAUSE of a sentence," is found on examination to be some short PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, "holding up her train,"—"dismissing his servant so hastily,"—"composing,"—"reading frequently,"—"composing frequently." And each of these, with an opposite error as great, they will have to be "one name," and to convey but "one idea;" supposing that by virtue of this imaginary oneness, it may govern the possessive case, and signify something which a "lady," or a "person," or a "pupil," may consistently possess. And then, to be wrong in every thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its adjuncts, "depends, may be put in the genitive case;" whereas, such a change is seldom, if ever, admissible, and in our language, no participle ever can depend on any other than the nominative or the objective case. Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the word which governs it. In respect to construction, no terms differ more than a participle which governs the possessive case, and a participle which does not. These different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to be equivalent in meaning; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in them quite different significations. The meaning is sometimes very different, and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible. And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Grammar? In Greek and Latin, a participle may agree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if we regard analogy, that genitive must be Englished, not by the possessive case, but by of and the objective; as, "[Greek: 'Epeì dokim`æn zæteîte toû 'en 'emoì laloûntos Christoû.]"—"Quandoquidem experimentum quæritis in me loquentis Christi."—Beza. "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me."—2 Cor., xiii, 3. We might here, perhaps, say, "of Christ's speaking in me," but is not the other form better? The French version is, "Puisque vous cherchez une preuve que Christ parle par moi;" and this, too, might be imitated in English: "Since ye seek a proof that Christ speaks by me."
OBS. 13.—As prepositions very naturally govern any of our participles except the simple perfect, it undoubtedly seems agreeable to our idiom not to disturb this government, when we would express the subject or agent of the being, action, or passion, between the preposition and the participle. Hence we find that the doer or the sufferer of the action is usually made its possessor, whenever the sense does not positively demand a different reading. Against this construction there is seldom any objection, if the participle be taken entirely as a noun, so that it may be called a participial noun; as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule."—Lowth, Campbell, and L. Murray. On the other hand, the participle after the objective is unobjectionable, if the noun or pronoun be the leading word in sense; as, "It would be idle to profess an apprehension of serious evil resulting in any respect from the utmost publicity being given to its contents."—London Eclectic Review, 1816. "The following is a beautiful instance of the sound of words corresponding to motion."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 333. "We shall discover many things partaking of both those characters."—West's Letters, p. 182. "To a person following the vulgar mode of omitting the comma."—Churchill's Gram., p. 365. But, in comparing the different constructions above noticed, writers are frequently puzzled to determine, and frequently too do they err in determining, which word shall be made the adjunct, and which the leading term. Now, wherever there is much doubt which of the two forms ought to be preferred, I think we may well conclude that both are wrong; especially, if there can easily be found for the idea an other expression that is undoubtedly clear and correct. Examples: "These appear to be instances of the present participle being used passively."—Murray's Gram., p. 64. "These are examples of the past participle being applied in an active sense."—Ib., 64. "We have some examples of adverbs being used for substantives."—Priestley's Gram., p. 134; Murray's, 198; Ingersoll's, 206; Fisk's, 140; Smith's, 165. "By a noun, pronoun, or adjective, being prefixed to the substantive."—Murray's Gram., p. 39; also Ingersoll's, Fisk's, Alger's, Maltby's, Merchant's, Bacon's, and others. Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word being, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes. Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, "Much depends on the rule being observed."—"Much will depend on the pupil composing frequently." Again: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians coming to attack him."—Rollin, ii, 86. "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians' coming to attack him." That is—"for their coming," and not, "for them coming;" but much better than either: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians to come and attack him." Again: "To prevent his army's being enclosed and hemmed in."—Rollin, ii, 89. "To prevent his army being enclosed and hemmed in." Both are wrong. Say, "To prevent his army from being enclosed and hemmed in." Again: "As a sign of God's fulfilling the promise."—Rollin, ii, 23. "As a sign of God fulfilling the promise." Both are objectionable. Say, "As a sign that God would fulfill the promise." Again: "There is affirmative evidence for Moses's being the author of these books."—Bp. Watson's Apology, p. 28. "The first argument you produce against Moses being the author of these books."—Ib., p. 29. Both are bad. Say,—"for Moses as being the author,"—"against Moses as being the author," &c.
OBS. 14.—Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is actually governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are, of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be better expressed in some other way. There are surely none among all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above. Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule. They are all of them unreal or feigned sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the same way, made up badly—made up after some ungrammatical model. If a gentleman could possibly demand a lady's meaning in such an act as the holding-up of her train, he certainly would use none of Priestley's three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, §481; but would probably say, "Madam, what do you mean by holding up your train?" It was folly for the doctor to ask an other person, as if an other could guess her meaning better than he. The text with the possessive is therefore not to be corrected by inserting a hyphen and an of, after Murray's doctrine before cited; as, "What is the meaning of this lady's holding-up of her train?" Murray did well to reject this example, but as a specimen of English, his own is no better. The question which he asks, ought to have been, "Why did this person dismiss his servant so hastily?" Fisk has it in the following form: "What is the reason of this person's dismissing his servant so hastily?"—English Grammar Simplified, p. 108. This amender of grammars omits the of which Murray and others scrupulously insert to govern the noun servant, and boldly avows at once, what their rule implies, that, "Participles are sometimes used both as verbs and as nouns at the same time; as, 'By the mind's changing the object,' &c."—Ib., p. 134; so Emmons's Gram., p. 64. But he errs as much as they, and contradicts both himself and them. For one ought rather to say, "By the mind's changing of the object;" else changing, which "does the office of a noun," has not truly "a correspondent regimen." Yet of is useless after dismissing, unless we take away the adverb by which the participle is prevented from becoming a noun. "Dismissing of his servant so hastily," is in itself an ungrammatical phrase; and nothing but to omit either the preposition, or the two adverbs, can possibly make it right. Without the latter, it may follow the possessive; but without the former, our most approved grammars say it cannot. Some critics, however, object to the of, because the dismissing is not the servant's act; but this, as I shall hereafter show, is no valid objection: they stickle for a false rule.
OBS. 15.—Thus these authors, differing from one an other as they do, and each contradicting himself and some of the rest, are, as it would seem, all wrong in respect to the whole matter at issue. For whether the phrase in question be like Priestley's, or like Murray's, or like Fisk's, it is still, according to the best authorities, unfit to govern the possessive case; because, in stead of being a substantive, it is something more than a participle, and yet they take it substantively. They form this phrase in many different fashions, and yet each man of them pretends that what he approves, is just like the construction of a regular noun: "Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant.'"—Murray, Fisk, and others. "Just as we say, 'What is the meaning of this lady's dress,' &c."—Priestley. The meaning of a lady's dress, forsooth! The illustration is worthy of the doctrine taught. "An entire clause of a sentence" substantively possessed, is sufficiently like "the meaning of a lady's dress, &c." Cobbett despised andsoforths, for their lack of meaning; and I find none in this one, unless it be, "of tinsel and of fustian." This gloss therefore I wholly disapprove, judging the position more tenable, to deny, if we consequently must, that either a phrase or a participle, as such, can consistently govern the possessive case. For whatever word or term gives rise to the direct relation of property, and is rightly made to govern the possessive case, ought in reason to be a noun—ought to be the name of some substance, quality, state, action, passion, being, or thing. When therefore other parts of speech assume this relation, they naturally become nouns; as, "Against the day of my burying."—John, xii, 7. "Till the day of his showing unto Israel."—Luke, i, 80. "By my own showing."—Cowper, Life, p. 22. "By a fortune of my own getting."—Ib. "Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay."—James, v, 12. "Prate of my whereabout."—Shah.
OBS. 16.—The government of possessives by "entire clauses" or "substantive phrases," as they are sometimes called, I am persuaded, may best be disposed of, in almost every instance, by charging the construction with impropriety or awkwardness, and substituting for it some better phraseology. For example, our grammars abound with sentences like the following, and call them good English: (1.) "So we may either say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or perhaps more elegantly, 'I remember its being reckoned a great exploit.'"—Priestley, Murray, and others. Here both modes are wrong; the latter, especially; because it violates a general rule of syntax, in regard to the case of the noun exploit. Say, "I remember it was reckoned a great exploit." Again: (2.) "We also properly say, 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 179; and others. Better, "This will be the effect, if the pupil compose frequently." But this sentence is fictitious, and one may doubt whether good authors can be found who use compose or composing as being intransitive. (3.) "What can be the reason of the committee's having delayed this business?"—Murray's Key, p. 223. Say, "Why have the committee delayed this business?" (4.) "What can be the cause of the parliament's neglecting so important a business?"—Ib., p. 195. Say, "Why does the parliament neglect so important a business?" (5.) "The time of William's making the experiment, at length arrived."—Ib., p. 195. Say, "The time for William to make the experiment, at length arrived." (6.) "I hope this is the last time of my acting so imprudently."—Ib., p. 263. Say, "I hope I shall never again act so imprudently." (7.) "If I were to give a reason for their looking so well, it would be, that they rise early."—Ib., p. 263. Say, "I should attribute their healthful appearance to their early rising." (8.) "The tutor said, that diligence and application to study were necessary to our becoming good scholars."—Cooper's Gram., p. 145. Here is an anomaly in the construction of the noun scholars. Say, "The tutor said, that diligent application to study was necessary to our success in learning." (9.) "The reason of his having acted in the manner he did, was not fully explained."—Murray's Key, p. 263. This author has a very singular mode of giving "STRENGTH" to weak sentences. The faulty text here was. "The reason why he acted in the manner he did, was not fully explained."—Murray's Exercises, p. 131. This is much better than the other, but I should choose to say. "The reason of his conduct was not fully explained." For, surely, the "one idea or circumstance" of his "having acted in the manner in which he did act," may be quite as forcibly named by the one word conduct, as by all this verbiage, this "substantive phrase," or "entire clause," of such cumbrous length.
OBS. 17.—The foregoing observations tend to show, that the government of possessives by participles, is in general a construction little to be commended, if at all allowed. I thus narrow down the application of the principle, but do not hereby determine it to be altogether wrong. There are other arguments, both for and against the doctrine, which must be taken into the account, before we can fully decide the question. The double construction which may be given to infinitive verbs; the Greek idiom which allows to such verbs an article before them and an objective after them; the mixed character of the Latin gerund, part noun, part verb; the use or substitution of the participle in English for the gerund in Latin;—all these afford so many reasons by analogy, for allowing that our participle—except it be the perfect—since it participates the properties of a verb and a noun, as well as those of a verb and an adjective, may unite in itself a double construction, and be taken substantively in one relation, and participially in an other. Accordingly some grammarians so define it; and many writers so use it; both parties disregarding the distinction between the participle and the participial noun, and justifying the construction of the former, not only as a proper participle after its noun, and as a gerundive after its preposition; not only as a participial adjective before its noun, and as a participial noun, in the regular syntax of a noun; but also as a mixed term, in the double character of noun and participle at once. Nor are these its only uses; for, after an auxiliary, it is the main verb; and in a few instances, it passes into a preposition, an adverb, or something else. Thus have we from the verb a single derivative, which fairly ranks with about half the different parts of speech, and takes distinct constructions even more numerous; and yet these authors scruple not to make of it a hybridous thing, neither participle nor noun, but constructively both. "But this," says Lowth, "is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction."—Gram., p. 82. And so say I—as asserting the general principle, and leaving the reader to judge of its exceptions. Because, without this mongrel character, the participle in our language has a multiplicity of uses unparalleled in any other; and because it seldom happens that the idea intended by this double construction may not be otherwise expressed more elegantly. But if it sometimes seem proper that the gerundive participle should be allowed to govern the possessive case, no exception to my rule is needed for the parsing of such possessive; because whatever is invested with such government, whether rightly or wrongly, is assumed as "the name of something possessed."
OBS. 18.—The reader may have observed, that in the use of participial nouns, the distinction of voice in the participle is sometimes disregarded. Thus, "Against the day of my burying," means, "Against the day of my being buried." But in this instance the usual noun burial or funeral would have been better than either: "Against the day of my burial." I. e., "In diem funerationis meæ."—Beza. "In diem sepulturæ meæ."—Leusden. "[Greek: 'Eis t`æn hæméran toû entaphiasmoû mou.]"—John, xii, 7. In an other text, this noun is very properly used for the Greek infinitive, and the Latin gerund; as, "For my burial."—Matt., xxvi, 12. "Ad funerandum me."—Beza. "Ad sepeliendum me."—Leusden. Literally: "For burying me." "[Greek: Pròs tò entaphiásai me.]" Nearly: "For to have me buried." Not all that is allowable, is commendable; and if either of the uncompounded terms be found a fit substitute for the compound participial noun, it is better to dispense with the latter, on account of its dissimilarity to other nouns: as, "Which only proceed upon the question's being begged."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 361. Better, "Which only proceed upon a begging of the question." "The king's having conquered in the battle, established his throne."—Nixon's Parser, p. 128. Better, "The king's conquering in the battle;" for, in the participial noun, the distinction of tense, or of previous completion, is as needless as that of voice. "The fleet's having sailed prevented mutiny."—Ib., p. 78. Better, "The sailing of the fleet,"—or, "The fleet's sailing" &c. "The prince's being murdered excited their pity."—Ibid. Better, "The prince's murder excited their indignation."
OBS. 19.—In some instances, as it appears, not a little difficulty is experienced by our grammarians, respecting the addition or the omission of the possessive sign, the terminational apostrophic s, which in nouns is the ordinary index of the possessive case. Let it be remembered that every possessive is governed, or ought to be governed, by some noun expressed or understood, except such as (without the possessive sign) are put in apposition with others so governed; and for every possessive termination there must be a separate governing word, which, if it is not expressed, is shown by the possessive sign to be understood. The possessive sign itself may and must be omitted in certain cases; but, because it can never be inserted or discarded without suggesting or discarding a governing noun, it is never omitted by ellipsis, as Buchanan, Murray, Nixon, and many others, erroneously teach. The four lines of Note 2d below, are sufficient to show, in every instance, when it must be used, and when omitted; but Murray, after as many octavo pages on the point, still leaves it perplexed and undetermined. If a person knows what he means to say, let him express it according to the Note, and he will not fail to use just as many apostrophes and Esses as he ought. How absurd then is that common doctrine of ignorance, which Nixon has gathered from Allen and Murray, his chief oracles! "If several nouns in the genitive case, are immediately connected by a conjunction, the apostrophic s is annexed to the last, but understood to the rest; as, Neither John (i. e. John's) nor Eliza's books."—English Parser, p. 115. The author gives fifteen other examples like this, all of them bad English, or at any rate, not adapted to the sense which he intends!
OBS. 20.—The possessive case generally comes immediately before the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "All nature's difference keeps all nature's peace."—Pope. "Lady! be thine (i. e., thy walk) the Christian's walk."—Chr. Observer. "Some of Æschylus's [plays] and Euripides's plays are opened in this manner."—Blair's Rhet., p. 459. And in this order one possessive sometimes governs an other: as, "Peter's wife's mother;"—"Paul's sister's son."—Bible. But, to this general principle of arrangement, there are some exceptions: as,
1. When the governing noun has an adjective, this may intervene; as, "Flora's earliest smells."—Milton. "Of man's first disobedience."—Id. In the following phrase from the Spectator, "Of Will's last night's lecture," it is not very clear, whether Will's is governed by night's or by lecture; yet it violates a general principle of our grammar, to suppose the latter; because, on this supposition, two possessives, each having the sign, will be governed by one noun.
2. When the possessive is affirmed or denied; as, "The book is mine, and not John's." But here the governing noun may be supplied in its proper place; and, in some such instances, it must be, else a pronoun or the verb will be the only governing word: as, "Ye are Christ's [disciples, or people]; and Christ is God's" [son].—St. Paul. Whether this phraseology is thus elliptical or not, is questionable. See Obs. 4th, in this series.
3. When the case occurs without the sign, either by apposition or by connexion; as, "In her brother Absalom's house."—Bible. "David and Jonathan's friendship."—Allen. "Adam and Eve's morning hymn."—Dr. Ash. "Behold the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, is the Lord's thy God."—Deut.,, x, 14. "For peace and quiet's sake."—Cowper. "To the beginning of King James the First's reign."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 32.
OBS. 21—The possessive case is in general (though not always) equivalent to the preposition of and the objective; as, "Of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son."—John, xiii, 2. "To Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon."—Ib., xiii, 26. On account of this one-sided equivalence, many grammarians erroneously reckon the latter to be a "genitive case" as well as the former. But they ought to remember, that the preposition is used more frequently than the possessive, and in a variety of senses that cannot be interpreted by this case; as, "Of some of the books of each of these classes of literature, a catalogue will be given at the end of the work."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 178. Murray calls this a "laborious mode of expression," and doubtless it might be a little improved by substituting in for the third of; but my argument is, that the meaning conveyed cannot be expressed by possessives. The notion that of forms a genitive case, led Priestley to suggest, that our language admits a "double genitive;" as, "This book of my friend's."—Priestley's Gram., p. 71. "It is a discovery of Sir Isaac Newton's."—Ib., p. 72. "This exactness of his."—STERNE: ib. The doctrine has since passed into nearly all our grammars; yet is there no double case here, as I shall presently show.
OBS. 22.—Where the governing noun cannot be easily mistaken, it is often omitted by ellipsis: as, "At the alderman's" [house];—"St. Paul's" [church];—"A book of my brother's" [books];—"A subject of the emperor's" [subjects];—"A friend of mine;" i. e., one of my friends. "Shall we say that Sacrificing was a pure invention of Adam's, or of Cain or Abel's?"—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 93. That is—of Adam's inventions, or of Cain or Abel's inventions. The Rev. David Blair, unable to resolve this phraseology to his own satisfaction, absurdly sets it down among what he calls "ERRONEOUS OR VULGAR PHRASES." His examples are these: "A poem of Pope's;"—"A soldier of the king's;"—"That is a horse of my father's."—Blair's Practical Gram., p. 110, 111. He ought to have supplied the plural nouns, poems, soldiers, horses. This is the true explanation of all the "double genitives" which our grammarians discover; for when the first noun is partitive, it naturally suggests more or other things of the same kind, belonging to this possessor; and when such is not the meaning, this construction is improper. In the following example, the noun eyes is understood after his:
"Ev'n his, the warrior's eyes, were forced to yield,
That saw, without a tear, Pharsalia's field."
—Rowe's Lucan, B. viii, l. 144.
OBS. 23.—When two or more nouns of the possessive form are in any way connected, they usually refer to things individually different but of the same name; and when such is the meaning, the governing noun, which we always suppress somewhere to avoid tautology, is understood wherever the sign is added without it; as, "A father's or mother's sister is an aunt."—Dr. Webster. That is, "A father's sister or a mother's sister is an aunt." "In the same commemorative acts of the senate, were thy name, thy father's, thy brother's, and the emperor's."—Zenobia, Vol. i, p. 231.
"From Stiles's pocket into Nokes's" [pocket].
—Hudibras, B. iii, C. iii, l. 715.
"Add Nature's, Custom's, Reason's, Passion's strife."
—Pope, Brit. Poets, Vol. vi, p. 383.
It will be observed that in all these examples the governing noun is singular; and, certainly, it must be so, if, with more than one possessive sign, we mean to represent each possessor as having or possessing but one object. If the noun be made plural where it is expressed, it will also be plural where it is implied. It is good English to say, "A father's or mother's sisters are aunts;" but the meaning is, "A father's sisters or a mother's sisters are aunts." But a recent school critic teaches differently, thus: "When different things of the same name belong to different possessors, the sign should be annexed to each; as, Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins' Arithmetics; i. e., three different books."—Spencer's Gram., p. 47. Here the example is fictitious, and has almost as many errors as words. It would be much better English to say, "Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins's Arithmetic;" though the objective form with of would, perhaps, be still more agreeable for these peculiar names. Spencer, whose Grammar abounds with useless repetitions, repeats his note elsewhere, with the following illustrations: "E. g. Olmstead's and Comstock's Philosophies. Gould's Adam's Latin Grammar."—Ib., p. 106. The latter example is no better suited to his text, than "Peter's wife's mother;" and the former is fit only to mean, "Olmstead's Philosophies and Comstock's Philosophies." To speak of the two books only, say," Olmstead's Philosophy and Comstock's."
OBS. 24.—The possessive sign is sometimes annexed to that part of a compound name, which is, of itself, in the objective case; as, "At his father-in-law's residence." Here, "At the residence of his father-in-law," would be quite as agreeable; and, as for the plural, one would hardly think of saying, "Men's wedding parties are usually held at their fathers-in-law's houses." When the compound is formed with of, to prevent a repetition of this particle, the possessive sign is sometimes added as above; and yet the hyphen is not commonly inserted in the phrase, as I think it ought to be. Examples: "The duke of Bridgewater's canal;"—"The bishop of Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Lord mayor of London's authority;"—"The captain of the guard's house."—Murray's Gram., p. 176. "The Bishop of Cambray's writings on eloquence."—Blair's Rhet., p. 345. "The bard of Lomond's lay is done."—Queen's Wake, p. 99. "For the kingdom of God's sake."—Luke, xviii, 29. "Of the children of Israel's half."—Numbers, xxxi, 30. From these examples it would seem, that the possessive sign has a less intimate alliance with the possessive case, than with the governing noun; or, at any rate, a dependence less close than that of the objective noun which here assumes it. And since the two nouns here so intimately joined by of, cannot be explained separately as forming two cases, but must be parsed together as one name governed in the usual way, I should either adopt some other phraseology, or write the compound terms with hyphens, thus: "The Duke-of-Bridgewater's canal;"—"The Bishop-of-Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Bard-of-Lomond's lay is done." But there is commonly some better mode of correcting such phrases. With deference to Murray and others, "The King of Great Britain's prerogative," [349] is but an untoward way of saying, "The prerogative of the British King;" and, "The Lord mayor of London's authority," may quite as well be written, "The authority of London's Lord Mayor." Blair, who for brevity robs the _Arch_bishop of half his title, might as well have said, "Fenelon's writings on eloquence." "Propter regnum Dei," might have been rendered, "For the kingdom of God;"—"For the sake of the kingdom of God;"—or, "For the sake of God's kingdom." And in lieu of the other text, we might say, "Of the Israelites' half."
OBS. 25.—"Little explanatory circumstances," says Priestley, "are particularly awkward between the genitive case, and the word which usually follows it; as, 'She began to extol the farmer's, as she called him, excellent understanding.' Harriet Watson, Vol. i, p. 27."—Priestley's Gram., p 174. Murray assumes this remark, and adds respecting the example, "It ought to be, 'the excellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.' "—Murray's Gram., p. 175. Intersertions of this kind are as uncommon as they are uncouth. Murray, it seems, found none for his Exercises, but made up a couple to suit his purpose. The following might have answered as well for an other: "Monsieur D'acier observes, that Zeno's (the Founder of the Sect,) opinion was Fair and Defensible in these Points."—Colliers Antoninus, p. ii.
OBS. 26.—It is so usual a practice in our language, to put the possessive sign always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet, that this ending is liable to be added to any adjunct which can be taken as a part of the former noun or name; as, (1.) "The court-martial's violent proceedings." Here the plural would be courts-martial; but the possessive sign must be at the end. (2.) "In Henry the Eighth's time."—Walker's Key, Introd., p. 11. This phrase can be justified only by supposing the adjective a part of the name. Better, "In the time of Henry the Eighth." (3.) "And strengthened with a year or two's age."—Locke, on Education, p. 6. Here two's is put for two years; and, I think, improperly; because the sign is such as suits the former noun, and not the plural. Better, "And strengthened with a year's age or more." The word two however is declinable as a noun, and possibly it may be so taken in Locke's phrase. (4.) "This rule is often infringed, by the case absolute's not being properly distinguished from certain forms of expression apparently similar to it."—Murray's Gram., p. 155; Fisk's, 113; Ingersoll's, 210. Here the possessive sign, being appended to a distinct adjective, and followed by nothing that can be called a noun, is employed as absurdly as it well can be. Say, "This rule is often infringed by an improper use of the nominative absolute;" for this is precisely what these authors mean. (5.) "The participle is distinguished from the adjective by the former's expressing the idea of time, and the latter's denoting only a quality"—Murray's Gram., p. 65; Fisk's, 82; Ingersoll's, 45; Emmons's, 64; Alger's, 28. This is liable to nearly the same objections. Say, "The participle differs from an adjective by expressing the idea of time, whereas the adjective denotes only a quality." (6.) "The relatives that and as differ from who and which in the former's not being immediately joined to the governing word."—Nixon's Parser, p. 140. This is still worse, because former's, which is like a singular noun, has here a plural meaning; namely, "in the former terms' not being," &c. Say—"in that the former never follow the governing word."
OBS. 27.—The possessive termination is so far from being liable to suppression by ellipsis, agreeably to the nonsense of those interpreters who will have it to be "understood" wherever the case occurs without it, that on the contrary it is sometimes retained where there is an actual suppression of the noun to which it belongs. This appears to be the case whenever the pronominal adjectives former and latter are inflected, as above. The inflection of these, however, seems to be needless, and may well be reckoned improper. But, in the following line, the adjective elegantly takes the sign; because there is an ellipsis of both nouns; poor's being put for poor man's, and the governing noun joys being understood after it: "The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay."—Goldsmith. So, in the following example, guilty's is put for guilty person's:
"Yet, wise and righteous ever, scorns to hear
The fool's fond wishes, or the guilty's prayer."
—Rowe's Lucan, B. v, l. 155.
This is a poetical license; and others of a like nature are sometimes met with. Our poets use the possessive case much more frequently than prose writers, and occasionally inflect words that are altogether invariable in prose; as,
"Eager that last great chance of war he waits,
Where either's fall determines both their fates."
—Ibid., B. vi, l. 13.
OBS. 28.—To avoid a concurrence of hissing sounds, the s of the possessive singular is sometimes omitted, and the apostrophe alone retained to mark the case: as, "For conscience' sake."—Bible. "Moses' minister."—Ib. "Felix' room."—Ib. "Achilles' wrath."—Pope. "Shiraz' walls."—Collins. "Epicurus' sty."—Beattie. "Douglas' daughter."—Scott. "For Douglas' sake."—Ib. "To his mistress' eyebrow."—Shak. This is a sort of poetic license, as is suggested in the 16th Observation upon the Cases of Nouns, in the Etymology. But in prose the elision should be very sparingly indulged; it is in general less agreeable, as well as less proper, than the regular form. Where is the propriety of saying, Hicks' Sermons, Barnes' Notes, Kames' Elements, Adams' Lectures, Josephus' Works, while we so uniformly say, in Charles's reign, St. James's Palace, and the like? The following examples are right: "At Westminster and Hicks's Hall."—Hudibras. "Lord Kames's Elements of Criticism."—Murray's Sequel, p. 331. "Of Rubens's allegorical pictures."—Hazlitt. "With respect to Burns's early education."—Dugald Stewart. "Isocrates's pomp;"—"Demosthenes's life."—Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The repose of Epicurus's gods."—Wilson's Heb. Gram., p. 93.
"To Douglas's obscure abode."—Scott, L. L., C. iii, st. 28.
"Such was the Douglas's command."—Id., ib., C. ii, st. 36.
OBS. 29.—Some of our grammarians, drawing broad conclusions from a few particular examples, falsely teach as follows: "When a singular noun ends in ss, the apostrophe only is added; as, 'For goodness' sake:' except the word witness; as, 'The witness's testimony.' When a noun in the possessive case ends in ence, the s is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, 'For conscience' sake.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 49; Hamlin's, 16; Smith's New Gram., 47.[350] Of principles or inferences very much like these, is the whole system of "Inductive Grammar" essentially made up. But is it not plain that heiress's, abbess's, peeress's, countess's, and many other words of the same form, are as good English as witness's? Did not Jane West write justly, "She made an attempt to look in at the dear dutchess's?"—Letters to a Lady, p. 95. Does not the Bible speak correctly of "an ass's head," sold at a great price?—2 Kings, vi, 25. Is Burns also wrong, about "miss's fine lunardi," and "miss's bonnet?"—Poems, p. 44. Or did Scott write inaccurately, whose guide "Led slowly through the pass's jaws?"—Lady of the Lake, p. 121. So much for the ss; nor is the rule for the termination ence, or (as Smith has it) nce, more true. Prince's and dunce's are as good possessives as any; and so are the following:
"That vice should triumph, virtue vice obey;
This sprung some doubt of Providence's sway."—Parnell.
"And sweet Benevolence's mild command."—Lord Lyttleton.
"I heard the lance's shivering crash,
As when the whirlwind rends the ash."—Sir Walter Scott.
OBS. 30.—The most common rule now in use for the construction of the possessive case, is a shred from the old code of Latin grammar: "One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case."—L. Murray's Rule X. This canon not only leaves occasion for an additional one respecting pronouns of the possessive case, but it is also obscure in its phraseology, and too negligent of the various modes in which nouns may come together in English. All nouns used adjectively, and many that are compounded together, seem to form exceptions to it. But who can limit or enumerate these exceptions? Different combinations of nouns have so often little or no difference of meaning, or of relation to each other, and so frequently is the very same vocal expression written variously by our best scholars, and ablest lexicographers, that in many ordinary instances it seems scarcely possible to determine who or what is right. Thus, on the authority of Johnson, one might write, a stone's cast, or stone's throw; but Webster has it, stones-cast, or stones-throw; Maunder, stonecast, stonethrow; Chalmers, stonescast; Worcester, stone's-cast. So Johnson and Chalmers write stonesmickle, a bird; Webster has it, stone's-mickle; yet, all three refer to Ainsworth as their authority, and his word is stone-smickle: Littleton has it stone-smich. Johnson and Chalmers write, popeseye and sheep's eye; Walker, Maunder, and Worcester, popeseye and sheep's-eye; Scott has pope's-eye and sheepseye; Webster, pope's-eye and sheep's-eye, bird-eye, and birds-eye. Ainsworth has goats beard, for the name of a plant; Johnson, goatbeard; Webster, goat-beard and goats-beard. Ainsworth has prince's feather, for the amaranth; Johnson, Chalmers, Walker, and Maunder, write it princes-feather; Webster and Worcester, princes'-feather; Bolles has it princesfeather: and here they are all wrong, for the word should be prince's-feather. There are hundreds more of such terms; all as uncertain in their orthography as these.
OBS. 31.—While discrepances like the foregoing abound in our best dictionaries, none of our grammars supply any hints tending to show which of these various forms we ought to prefer. Perhaps the following suggestions, together with the six Rules for the Figure of Words, in Part First, may enable the reader to decide these questions with sufficient accuracy. (1.) Two short radical nouns are apt to unite in a permanent compound, when the former, taking the sole accent, expresses the main purpose or chief characteristic of the thing named by the latter; as, teacup, sunbeam, daystar, horseman, sheepfold, houndfish, hourglass. (2.) Temporary compounds of a like nature may be formed with the hyphen, when there remain two accented syllables; as, castle-wall, bosom-friend, fellow-servant, horse-chestnut, goat-marjoram, marsh-marigold. (3.) The former of two nouns, if it be not plural, may be taken adjectively, in any relation that differs from apposition and from possession; as, "The silver cup,"—"The parent birds,"—"My pilgrim feet,"—"Thy hermit cell,"—"Two brother sergeants." (4.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a literal name, may be joined together without either hyphen or apostrophe: as, tradesman, ratsbane, doomsday, kinswoman, craftsmaster. (5.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a metaphorical name, should be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, Job's-tears, Jew's-ear, bear's-foot, colts-tooth, sheep's-head, crane's-bill, crab's-eyes, hound's-tongue, king's-spear, lady's-slipper, lady's-bedstraw, &c. (6.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form an adjective, whether literal or metaphorical, should generally be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, "Neats-foot oil,"—"Calfs-foot jelly,"—"A carp's-tongue drill,"—"A bird's-eye view,"—"The states'-rights' party,"—"A camel's-hair shawl." But a triple compound noun may be formed with one hyphen only: as, "In doomsday-book;" (—Joh. Dict.;) "An armsend-lift." Cardell, who will have all possessives to be adjectives, writes an example thus: "John's camel's hair girdle."—Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 39. That is as if John's camel had a hair girdle! (7.) When the possessive case and its governing noun merely help to form a regular phrase, the compounding of them in any fashion may be reckoned improper; thus the phrases, a day's work, at death's door, on New Year's Day, a new year's gift, All Souls' Day, All Saints' Day, All Fools' Day, the saints' bell, the heart's blood, for dog's meat, though often written otherwise, may best stand as they do here.
OBS. 32.—The existence of a permanent compound of any two words, does not necessarily preclude the use of the possessive relation between the same words. Thus, we may speak of a horse's shoe or a goat's skin, notwithstanding there are such words as horseshoe and goatskin. E.g., "That preach ye upon the housetops."—ALGER'S BIBLE: Matt., x, 27. "Unpeg the basket on the house's top."—Beauties of Shak., p. 238. Webster defines frostnail, (which, under the word cork, he erroneously writes frost nail,) "A nail driven into a horse-shoe, to prevent the horse from slipping on ice." Worcester has it, "A nail driven into a horse's shoe, to prevent his slipping on the ice." Johnson, "A nail with a prominent head driven into the horse's shoes, that it may pierce the ice." Maunder, "A nail with a sharp head driven into the horses' shoes in frosty weather." None of these descriptions is very well written. Say rather, "A spur-headed nail driven into a horse's shoe to prevent him from slipping." There is commonly some difference, and sometimes a very great one, between the compound noun and the possessive relation, and also between the radical compound and that of the possessive. Thus a harelip is not a hare's lip, nor is a headman a headsman, or heart-ease heart's-ease. So, according to the books, a cat-head, a cat's-head, and a cat's head, are three very different things; yet what Webster writes, cat-tail, Johnson, cats-tail, Walker and others, cats-tail, means but the same thing, though not a cat's tail. Johnson's "kingspear, Jews-ear, lady-mantle, and lady-bedstraw," are no more proper, than Webster's "bear's-wort, lion's foot, lady's mantle, and lady's bed-straw." All these are wrong.
OBS. 33.—Particular examples, both of proper distinction, and of blind irregularity, under all the heads above suggested, may be quoted and multiplied indefinitely, even from our highest literary authorities; but, since nothing can be settled but by the force of principles, he who would be accurate, must resort to rules,—must consider what is analogical, and, in all doubtful cases, give this the preference. But, in grammar, particular analogies are to be respected, as well as those which are more general. For example, the noun side, in that relation which should seem to require the preceding noun to be in the possessive case, is usually compounded with it, the hyphen being used where the compound has more than two syllables, but not with two only; as, bedside, hillside, roadside, wayside, seaside, river-side, water-side, mountain-side. Some instances of the separate construction occur, but they are rare: as, "And her maidens walked along by the river's side."—Exodus, ii, 5. After this noun also, the possessive preposition of is sometimes omitted; as, "On this side the river;"(—Bible;) "On this side Trent."—Cowell. Better, "On this side of the river," &c. "Blind Bartimeus sat by the highway side, begging."—Mark, x, 46. Here Alger more properly writes "highway-side." In Rev., xiv, 20th, we have the unusual compound, "horse-bridles." The text ought to have been rendered, "even unto the horses' bridles." Latin, "usque ad frænos equorum." Greek, "[Greek: achri ton chalinon ton hippon]."
OBS. 34.—Correlatives, as father and son, husband and wife, naturally possess each other; hence such combinations as father's son, and son's father, though correct enough in thought, are redundant in expression. The whole and a part are a sort of correlatives, but the whole seems to possess its parts, more properly than any of the parts, the whole. Yet we seldom put the whole in the possessive case before its part, or parts, but rather express the relation by of; as, "a quarter of a dollar," rather than, "a dollar's quarter." After the noun half, we usually suppress this preposition, if an article intervene; as, "half a dollar," rather than, "half of a dollar," or "a dollar's half." So we may say, "half the way," for "half of the way;" but we cannot say, "half us" for "half of us." In the phrase, "a half dollar," the word half is an adjective, and a very different meaning is conveyed. Yet the compounds half-pint and half-penny are sometimes used to signify, the quantity of half a pint, the value of half a penny. In weight, measure, or time, the part is sometimes made possessive of the whole; as, "a pound's weight, a yard's length, an hour's time." On the contrary, we do not say, "weight's pound, length's yard, or time's hour;" nor yet, "a pound of weight, a yard of length;" and rarely do we say, "an hour of time." Pound and yard having other uses, we sometimes say, "a pound in weight, a yard in length;" though scarcely, "an hour in time."
OBS. 35.—Between a portion of time and its correlative action, passion, or being, the possessive relation is interchangeable; so that either term may be the principal, and either, the adjunct: as, "Three years' hard work," or, "Three years of hard work." Sometimes we may even put either term in either form; as, "During the ten years' war,"—"During the ten years of war,"—"During the war of ten years,"—"During the war's ten years." Hence some writers, not perceiving why either word should make the other its governed adjunct, place both upon a par, as if they were in apposition; as, "Three days time."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 156. "By a few years preparation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 341. "Of forty years planting."—Wm. Penn. "An account, of five years standing." If these phrases were correct, it would also be correct to say, "one day time,"—"one year preparation,"—"one year planting,"—"of one year standing;" but all these are manifestly bad English; and, by analogy, so are the others.
OBS. 36.—Any noun of weight, measure, or time, put immediately before an other, if it be not in the possessive case, will naturally be understood adjectively; as, "No person can, by words only, give to an other an adequate idea of a pound weight, or [a] foot rule."—Gregory's Dict. This phraseology can, with propriety, refer only to the weight or the rule with which we weigh or measure; it cannot signify a pound in weight, or a foot in length, though it is very probable that the author intended the latter. When the noun times is used before an other noun by way of multiplication, there may be supposed an ellipsis of the preposition of between the two, just as when we divide by the word half; as, "An hour is sixty times the length of a minute."—Murray's Gram., p. 48. "Thirty seconds are half the length of a minute." That is,—"half of the length,"—"sixty times of the length."
Notes to Rule IV.
NOTE I.—In the syntax of the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word. Thus, write John's, men's, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs; and not, Johns, mens', her's, it's, our's, your's, their's.
NOTE II.—When nouns of the possessive case are connected by conjunctions or put in apposition, the sign of possession must always be annexed to such, and such only, as immediately precede the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "John and Eliza's teacher is a man of more learning than James's or Andrew's"—"For David my servant's sake."—Bible. "For my sake and the gospel's."—Ib. "Lost in love's and friendship's smile."—Scott.
NOTE III.—The relation of property may also be expressed by the preposition of and the objective; as, "The will of man," for "man's will." Of these forms, we should adopt that which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable; and, by the use of both, avoid an unpleasant repetition of either.
NOTE IV.—A noun governing the possessive plural, should not, by a forced agreement, be made plural, when its own sense does not require it; as, "For our parts,"—"Were I in your places:" for we may with propriety say, "Our part, your place, or your condition;" as well as, "Our desire, your intention, their resignation."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 169. A noun taken figuratively may also be singular, when the literal meaning would require the plural: such expressions as, "their face,"—"their neck,"—"their hand,"—"their head,"—"their heart,"—"our mouth,"—"our life,"—are frequent in the Scriptures, and not improper.
NOTE V.—The possessive case should not be needlessly used before a participle that is not taken in other respects as a noun. The following phrase is therefore wrong: "Adopted by the Goths in their pronouncing the Greek."—Walker's Key, p. 17. Expunge their. Again: "Here we speak of their becoming both in form and signification passive."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 226. Say rather, "Here we speak of them as becoming passive, both in form and signification."
Improprieties for Correction. False Syntax under Rule IV.
Examples under Note I.—The Possessive Form.
"Mans chief good is an upright mind." See Brown's Institutes of E. Gram., p. 179.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the noun mans, which is intended for the possessive singular of man, has not the appropriate form of that case and number. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 4th, "In the syntax ef the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word." Therefore, mans should be maris, with the apostrophe before the s; thus, "Man's chief good is an upright mind."]
"The translator of Mallets History has the following note,"—Webster's Essays, p. 263. "The act, while it gave five years full pay to the officers, allowed but one year's pay to the privates."—Ib., p. 184. "For the study of English is preceded by several years attention to Latin and Greek."—Ib., p. 7. "The first, the Court Baron, is the freeholders or freemens court."—Coke, Litt., p. 74. "I affirm, that Vaugelas' definition labours under an essential defect."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 163. "I affirm, that Vangelas's definition labours under an essential defect."—Murray's Octavo Gram., Fourth Amer. Ed., Vol. ii, p. 360.[351] "There is a chorus in Aristophane's plays."—Blair's Rhet., p. 480. "It denotes the same perception in my mind as in their's."—Duncan's Logic, p. 65. "This afterwards enabled him to read Hicke's Saxon Grammar."—Life of Dr. Murray, p. 76. "I will not do it for tens sake."—Dr. Ash's Gram., p. 56. "I arose, and asked if those charming infants were her's."—Werter, p. 21. "They divide their time between milliners shops and taverns."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. i, p. 65. "The angels adoring of Adam is also mentioned in the Talmud."—Sale's Koran, p. 6. "Quarrels arose from the winners insulting of those who lost."—Ib., p. 171. "The vacancy, occasioned by Mr. Adams' resignation."—Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. vii. "Read for instance Junius' address, commonly called his letter to the king."—Ib., i, 225. "A perpetual struggle against the tide of Hortensius' influence."—Ib., ii, 23. "Which, for distinction sake, I shall put down severally."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 302. "The fifth case is in a clause signifying the matter of ones fear."—Ib., p. 312. "And they took counsel, and bought with them the potters' field."—ALGER'S BIBLE: Matt., xxvii, 7. "Arise for thy servant's help, and redeem them for thy mercy's sake."—Jenks's Prayers, p. 265. "Shall not their cattle, and their substance, and every beast of their's be ours?"—SCOTT'S BIBLE: Gen., xxxiv, 23. "And every beast of their's, be our's?"—FRIENDS' BIBLE: ib. "It's regular plural, bullaces, is used by Bacon."—Churchill's Gram., p. 213. "Mordecai walked every day before the court of the womens house."—SCOTT'S BIBLE: Esther, ii, 11. "Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in king's houses."—IB. and FRIENDS' BIBLE: Matt., xi, 8: also Webster's Imp. Gram., p. 173. "Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, and her two sons; and Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came, with his sons and his wife, unto Moses."—ALGER'S BIBLE, and THE FRIENDS': Exod., xviii, 2—6. "King James' translators merely revised former translations."—Rev. B. Frazee's Gram., p. 137. "May they be like corn on houses tops."—White, on the English Verb., p. 160.
"And for his Maker's image sake exempt."
—Par. Lost, B. xi, l. 514.
"By all the fame acquir'd in ten years war."
—Rowe's Lucan, B. i, l. 674.
"Nor glad vile poets with true critics gore."
—Pope's Dunicad, [sic—KTH] p. 175.
"Man only of a softer mold is made,
Not for his fellow's ruin, but their aid."
—Dryden's Poems, p. 92.
Under Note Ii.—Possessives Connected.
"It was necessary to have both the physician, and the surgeon's advice."—Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram., p. 140. "This out-side fashionableness of the Taylor on Tire-woman's making."—Locke, on Education, p. 49. "Some pretending to be of Paul's party, others of Apollos, others of Cephas, and others, pretending yet higher, to be of Christ's."—Woods Dict., w. Apollos. "Nor is it less certain that Spenser's and Milton's spelling agrees better with our pronunciation."— Philol. Museum, i, 661. "Law's, Edwards', and Watts' surveys of the Divine Dispensations."—Burgh's Dignity, Vol. i, p. 193. "And who was Enoch's Saviour, and the Prophets?"—Bayly's Works, p. 600. "Without any impediment but his own, or his parents or guardians will."—Literary Convention, p. 145. "James relieves neither the boy[352] nor the girl's distress."—Nixon's Parser, p. 116. "John regards neither the master nor the pupil's advantage."—Ib., p. 117. "You reward neither the man nor the woman's labours."—Ib. "She examines neither James nor John's conduct."— Ib. "Thou pitiest neither the servant nor the master's injuries."—Ib. "We promote England or Ireland's happiness."—Ib. "Were Cain and Abel's occupation the same?"—Brown's Inst., p. 179. "Were Cain's and Abel's occupations the same?"—Ib. "What was Simon's and Andrew's employment?"— Author. "Till he can read himself Sanctii Minerva with Scioppius and Perizonius's Notes."—Locke, on Education, p. 295.
"And love's and friendship's finely—pointed dart
Falls blunted from each indurated heart."—Goldsmith.
Under Note Iii.—Choice of Forms.
"But some degree of trouble is all men's portion."—Murray's Key, p. 218; Merchant's, 197. "With his father's and mother's names upon the blank leaf."—Corner-Stone, p. 144. "The general, in the army's name, published a declaration."—HUME: in Priestley's Gram., p. 69. "The Commons' vote."—Id, ib. "The Lords' house."—Id., ib. "A collection of writers faults."—SWIFT: ib., p. 68. "After ten years wars."—Id., ib. "Professing his detestation of such practices as his predecessors."—Notes to the Dunciad. "By that time I shall have ended my years office."—Walker's Particles, p. 104. "For Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife."—Mark, vi, 17. "For Herodias's sake, his brother Philip's wife."—Murray's Key, p. 194. "I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain salvation."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: 2 Tim., ii, 10. "For the elects' sakes."—SCOTT'S BIBLE. "For the elect's sake."—ALGER'S BIBLE, and BRUCE'S. "He was Louis the Sixteenth's son's heir."—W. Allen's Exercises, Gram., p. 329. "The throne we honour is the choice of the people."—"An account of the proceedings of the court of Alexander."—"An excellent tutor of a person of fashion's child!"—Gil Bias, Vol. 1, p. 20. "It is curious enough, that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical!"—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 201. "The troops broke into Leopold the emperor's palace."—Nixon's Parser, p. 59. "The meeting was called by Eldon the judge's desire."—Ibid. "Peter's, John's, and Andrew's occupation was that of fishermen."—Brace's Gram., p. 79. "The venerable president of the Royal Academy's debility has lately increased."—Maunder's Gram., p. 12.
Under Note Iv.—Nouns with Possessives Plural.
"God hath not given us our reasons to no purpose."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 496. "For our sakes, no doubt, this is written."—1 Cor., ix, 10. "Are not health and strength of body desirable for their own sakes?"—Hermes, p. 296; Murray's Gram., 289. "Some sailors who were boiling their dinners upon the shore."—Day's Sandford and Merton, p. 99. "And they in their turns were subdued by others."—Pinnock's Geography, p. 12. "Industry on our parts is not superseded by God's grace."—Arrowsmith. "Their Healths perhaps may be pretty well secur'd."—Locke, on Education, p. 51. "Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor."—Murray's Gram., p. 211. "It were to be wished, his correctors had been as wise on their parbs."—Harris's Hermes, p. 60. "The Arabs are commended by the ancients for being most exact to their words, and respectful to their kindred."—Sale's Koran. "That is, as a reward of some exertion on our parts."—Gurney's Evidences, p. 86. "So that it went ill with Moses for their sakes."—Psalms, cvi, 32. "All liars shall have their parts in the burning lake."—Watts, p. 33. "For our own sakes as well as for thine."—Pref. to Waller's Poems, p. 3. "By discover- ing their abilities to detect and amend errors."—Murray's Gram., Vol. 11, p. iv.
"This world I do renounce; and, in your sights, Shake patiently my great affliction off."—Beauties of Shak., p. 286 "If your relenting angers yield to treat, Pompey and thou, in safety, here may meet."—Rowe's Lucan, B. iii, l. 500.
Under Note Y.—Possessives with Participles.
"This will encourage him to proceed without his acquiring the prejudice."—Smith's Gram., p. 5. "And the notice which they give of an action's being completed or not completed."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 72; Alger's, 30. "Some obstacle or impediment that prevents its taking place."—Priestley's Gram., p. 38; Alex. Murray's, 37. "They have apostolical authority for their so frequently urging the seeking of the Spirit."—The Friend, Vol. xii, p. 54. "Here then is a wide field for reason's exerting its powers in relation to the objects of taste."— Blair's Rhet., p. 18. "Now this they derive altogether from their having a greater capacity of imitation and description."—Ib., p. 51. "This is one clear reason of their paying a greater attention to that construction." —Ib., p. 123. "The dialogue part had also a modulation of its own, which was capable of its being set to notes."—Ib., p. 471. "What is the reason of our being often so frigid and unpersuasive in public discourse?"—Ib., p. 334. "Which is only a preparation for his leading his forces directly upon us."—Ib., p. 264. "The nonsense about which's relating to things only, and having no declension, needs no refutation."—Fowle's True E. Gram., p. 18. "Who, upon his breaking it open, found nothing but the following inscription."—Rollin, Vol. ii, p. 33. "A prince will quickly have reason to repent his having exalted one person so high."—Id., ii, 116. "Notwithstanding it's being the immediate subject of his discourse."— Churchill's Gram., p. 294. "With our definition of its being synonymous with time."—Booth's Introd., p. 29. "It will considerably increase the danger of our being deceived."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 293. "His beauties can never be mentioned without their suggesting his blemishes also."— Blair's Rhet., p. 442. "No example has ever been adduced of a man's conscientiously approving of an action, because of its badness."—Gurney's Evidences, p. 90. "The last episode of the angel's shewing Adam the fate of his posterity, is happily imagined."—Blair's Rhet., p. 452. "And the news came to my son, of his and the bride being in Dublin."—Castle Rackrent, p. 44. "There is no room for the mind's exerting any great effort."—Blair's Rhet., p. 32. "One would imagine, that these criticks never so much as heard of Homer's having written first."—Pope's Preface to Homer. "Condemn the book, for its not being a geography."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 317. "There will be in many words a transition from their being the figurative to their being the proper signs of certain ideas."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 322. "The doctrine of the Pope's being the only source of ecclesiastical power."—Religious World, ii, 290. "This has been the more expedient from the work's being designed for the benefit of private learners."—Murray's Exercises, Introd., p. v. "This was occasioned by the Grammar's having been set up, and not admitting of enlargement."—Ib., Advertisement, p. ix.
Rule V.—Objectives.
A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case: as, "I found her assisting him"—"Having finished the work, I submit it."
"Preventing fame, misfortune lends him wings,
And Pompey's self his own sad story brings."
—Rowe's Lucan, B. viii, l. 66.
Observations on Rule V.
OBS. 1.—To this rule there are no exceptions; but to the old one adopted by Murray and others, "Active verbs govern the objective case," there are more than any writer will ever think it worth his while to enumerate. In point of brevity, the latter has the advantage, but in nothing else; for, as a general rule for NOUNS AND PRONOUNS, this old brief assertion is very defective; and, as a rule for "THE SYNTAX OF VERBS," under which head it has been oftener ranked, it is entirely useless and inapplicable. As there are four different constructions to which the nominative case is liable, so there are four in which the objective may be found; and two of these are common to both; namely, apposition, and sameness of case. Every objective is governed by some verb or participle, according to Rule 5th, or by some preposition, according to Rule 7th; except such as are put in apposition with others, according to Rule 3d, or after an infinitive or a participle not transitive, according to Rule 6th: as, "Mistaking one for the other, they took him, a sturdy fellow, called Red Billy, to be me." Here is every construction which the objective case can have; except, perhaps, that in which, as an expression of time, place, measure, or manner, it is taken after the fashion of an adverb, the governing preposition being suppressed, or, as some say, no governing word being needed. Of this exception, the following quotations may serve for examples: "It holds on by a single button round my neck, cloak-fashion"—EDGEWORTH'S Castle Rackrent. p. 17. A man quite at leisure to parse all his words, would have said, "in the fashion of a cloak." Again: "He does not care the rind of a lemon for her all the while."—Ib., p. 108. "We turn our eyes this way or that way."—Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 172; Frazee's Gram., 157. Among his instances of "the objective case restrictive," or of the noun "used in the objective, without a governing word," Dr. Bullions gives this: "Let us go home" But, according to the better opinion of Worcester, home is here an adverb, and not a noun. See Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.
OBS. 2.—The objective case generally follows the governing word: as, "And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him"—Gen., xlii, 8. But when it is emphatic, it often precedes the nominative; as, "Me he restored to mine office, and him he hanged."—Gen., xli, 13. "John have I beheaded."—Luke, ix, 9. "But me ye have not always."—Matt., xxvi, 11. "Him walking on a sunny hill he found."—Milton. In poetry, the objective is sometimes placed between the nominative and the verb; as,
"His daring foe securely him defied."—Milton.
"Much he the place admired, the person more."—Id.
"The broom its yellow leaf shed."—Langhorne.
If the nominative be a pronoun which cannot be mistaken for an objective, the words may possibly change places; as, "Silver and gold have I none."—Acts, iii, 6. "Created thing nought valued he nor shunn'd."—Milton, B. ii, l. 679. But such a transposition of two nouns can scarcely fail to render the meaning doubtful or obscure; as,
"This pow'r has praise, that virtue scarce can warm,
Till fame supplies the universal charm."—Dr. Johnson.
A relative or an interrogative pronoun is commonly placed at the head of its clause, and of course it precedes the verb which governs it; as, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest."—Acts, ix, 5. "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?"—Ib., vii, 52.
"Before their Clauses plac'd, by settled use,
The Relatives these Clauses introduce."—Ward's Gram., p. 86.
OBS. 3.—Every active-transitive verb or participle has some noun or pronoun for its object, or some pronominal adjective which assumes the relation of the objective case. Though verbs are often followed by the infinitive mood, or a dependent clause, forming a part of the logical predicate; yet these terms, being commonly introduced by a connecting particle, do not form such an object as is contemplated in our definition of a transitive verb. Its government of the objective, is the only proper criterion of this sort of verb. If, in the sentence, "Boys love to play," the former verb is transitive, as several respectable grammarians affirm; why not also in a thousand others; as, "Boys like to play;"—"Boys delight to play;"—"Boys long to play;"—"The boys seem to play;"—"The boys cease to play;"—"The boys ought to play;"—"The boys go out to play;"—"The boys are gone out to play;"—"The boys are allowed to play;" and the like? The construction in all is precisely the same, and the infinitive may follow one kind of verb just as well as an other. How then can the mere addition of this mood make any verb transitive? or where, on such a principle, can the line of distinction for transitive verbs be drawn? The infinitive, in fact, is governed by the preposition to; and the preceding verb, if it has no other object, is intransitive. It must, however, be confessed that some verbs which thus take the infinitive after them, cannot otherwise be intransitive; as, "A great mind disdains to hold any thing by courtesy."—Johnson's Life of Swift. "They require to be distinguished by a comma."—Murray's Gram., p. 272.
OBS. 4.—A transitive verb, as I have elsewhere shown, may both govern the objective case, and be followed by an infinitive also; as, "What have I to do with thee?"—John, ii, 4. This question, as one would naturally take it, implies, "I have nothing to do with thee;" and, by analogy, what is governed by have, and not by do; so that the latter verb, though not commonly intransitive, appears to be so here. Indeed the infinitive mood is often used without an objective, when every other part of the same verb would require one. Maunder's rule is, "Transitive verbs and participles govern either the objective case or the infinitive mode."—Comprehensive Gram., p. 14. Murray teaches, not only that, "The infinitive mood does the office of a substantive in the objective case; as, 'Boys love to play;'" but that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb; as, 'He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely.'"—See his Octavo Gram., pp. 184 and 194. And again: "Part of a sentence, as well as a noun or pronoun, may be said to be in the objective case, or to be put objectively, governed by the active verb; as, 'We sometimes see virtue in distress, but we should consider how great will be her ultimate reward.' Sentences or phrases under this circumstance, may be termed objective sentences or phrases."—Ib., p. 180.
OBS. 5.—If we admit that sentences, parts of sentences, infinitives, participles with their adjuncts, and other phrases, as well as nouns and pronouns, may be "in the objective case;" it will be no easy matter, either to define this case, or to determine what words do, or do not, govern it.[353] The construction of infinitives and participles will be noticed hereafter. But on one of Murray's examples, I would here observe, that the direct use of the infinitive for an objective noun is a manifest Grecism; as, "For to will is present with me; but to perform that which is good, I find not."—Octavo Gram., p. 184. That is, "the performance of that which is good, I find not." Or perhaps we may supply a noun after the verb, and take this text to mean, "But to perform that which is good, I find not the ability." Our Bible has it, "But how to perform that which is good. I find not;" as if the manner in which he might do good, was what the apostle found not: but Murray cites it differently, omitting the word how, as we see above. All active verbs to which something is subjoined by when, where, whence, how, or why, must be accounted intransitive, unless we suppose them to govern such nouns of time, place, degree, manner, or cause, as correspond to these connectives; as, "I know why she blushed." Here we might supply the noun reason, as, "I know the reason why she blushed;" but the word is needless, and I should rather parse know as being intransitive. As for "virtue in distress," if this is an "objective phrase," and not to be analyzed, we have millions of the same sort; but, if one should say, "Virtue in distress excites pity," the same phrase would demonstrate the absurdity of Murray's doctrine, because the two nouns here take two different cases.
OBS. 6.—The word that, which is often employed to introduce a dependent clause, is, by some grammarians, considered as a pronoun, representing the clause which follows it; as, "I know that Messias cometh."—John, iv, 25. This text they would explain to mean, "Messias cometh, I know that;" and their opinion seems to be warranted both by the origin and by the usual import of the particle. But, in conformity to general custom, and to his own views of the practical purposes of grammatical analysis, the author has ranked it with the conjunctions. And he thinks it better, to call those verbs intransitive, which are followed by that and a dependent clause, than to supply the very frequent ellipses which the other explanation supposes. To explain it as a conjunction, connecting an active-transitive verb and its object, as several respectable grammarians do, appears to involve some inconsistency. If that is a conjunction, it connects what precedes and what follows; but a transitive verb should exercise a direct government, without the intervention of a conjunction. On the other hand, the word that has not, in any such sentence, the inherent nature of a pronoun. The transposition above, makes it only a pronominal adjective; as, "Messias cometh, I know that fact." And in many instances such a solution is impracticable; as, "The people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them."—Luke, iv, 42. Here, to prove that to be a pronoun, the disciples of Tooke and Webster must resort to more than one imaginary ellipsis, and to such inversion as will scarcely leave the sense in sight.
OBS. 7.—In some instances the action of a transitive verb gives to its direct object an additional name, which is also in the objective case, the two words being in apposition; as, "Thy saints proclaim thee king."—Cowper. "And God called the firmament Heaven."—Bible. "Ordering them to make themselves masters of a certain steep eminence."—Rollin, ii, 67. And, in such a construction, the direct object is sometimes placed before the verb; though the name which results from the action, cannot be so placed: as, "And Simon he surnamed Peter."—Mark, iii, 15. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God."—Rev., iii, 12. Some grammarians seem not to have considered this phraseology as coming within the rule of apposition. Thus Webster: "We have some verbs which govern two words in the objective case; as,
'Did I request thee, maker, from my clay
To mold me man?'—Milton, 10, 744.
'God seems to have made him what he was.'—Life of Cowper."[354]—Philosophical Gram., p. 170. Improved Gram., p. 120. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 154; "Abridged Ed.," p. 119; and Fowler's E. Gram., §450. So Murray: "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case; as, 'The Author of my being formed me man.'—'They desired me to call them brethren.'—'He seems to have made him what he was.' "—Octavo Gram., p. 183. Yet this latter writer says, that in the sentence, "They appointed me executor," and others like it," the verb to be is understood."—Ib., p. 182. These then, according to his own showing, are instances of apposition; but I pronounce then such, without either confounding same cases with apposition, or making the latter a species of ellipsis. See Obs. 1st and 2d, under Rule 3d.
OBS. 8.—In general, if not always, when a verb is followed by two objectives which are neither in apposition nor connected by a conjunction, one of them is governed by a preposition understood; as, "I paid [to] him the money"—"They offered [to] me a seat"—"He asked [of] them the question"—"I yielded, and unlock'd [to] her all my heart."—Milton. In expressing such sentences passively, the object of the preposition is sometimes erroneously assumed for the nominative; as, "He was paid the money," in stead of, "The money was paid [to] him."—"I was offered a seat," in stead of, "A seat was offered [to] me." This kind of error is censured by Murray more than once, and yet he himself has, in very many instances, fallen into it. His first criticism on it, is in the following words: "We sometimes meet with such expressions as these: 'They were asked a question;' 'They were offered a pardon;' 'He hath been left a great estate by his father.' In these phrases, verbs passive are made to govern the objective case. This license is not to be approved. The expressions should be: 'A question was put to them;' 'A pardon was offered to them;' 'His father left him a great estate.'"—L. Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 183. See Obs. 12, below.
OBS. 9.—In the Latin syntax, verbs of asking and teaching are said to govern two accusatives; as, "Posce Deum veniam, Beg pardon of God."—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 207. "Docuit me grammaticam, He taught me grammar."—Grant, Adam, and others. And again: "When a verb in the active voice governs two cases, in the passive it retains the latter case; as, Doceor grammaticam, I am taught grammar."—Adam's Gram., p. 177. These writers however suggest, that in reality the latter accusative is governed, not by the verb, but by a preposition understood. "'Poscere deos veniam is 'to ask the gods for pardon.'"—Barnes's Philological Gram., p. 116. In general the English idiom does not coincide with what occurs in Latin under these rules. We commonly insert a preposition to govern one or the other of the terms. But we sometimes leave to the verb the objective of the person, and sometimes that of the thing; and after the two verbs ask and teach, we sometimes seem to leave both: as, "When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down, and ask of thee forgiveness."— Shakspeare. "In long journeys, ask your master leave to give ale to the horses."—Swift. "And he asked them of their welfare."—Gen., xliii, 27. "They asked of him the parable."—Mark, iv, 10. ("Interrogârunt eum de parabolâ."—Beza.) "And asking them questions"—Luke, ii, 46. "But teach them thy sons."—Deut., iv, 9. "Teach them diligently unto thy children"—Ib., vi, 7. '"Ye shall teach them your children."—Ib., xi, 19. "Shall any teach God knowledge?"—Job, xxi, 22. "I will teach you the fear of the Lord."—Psal, xxxiv, 11. "He will teach us of his ways."—Isaiah, ii, 3; Micah, iv, 2. "Let him that is taught in the word, communicate."—Gal., vi, 6.
OBS. 10.—After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or pronoun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be parsed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction. Consequently I do not admit, that any passive verb can properly govern an objective noun or pronoun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, "Give him bread to eat."—"Bread shall be given him"—Bible. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a "preposition understood;" and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, "Give [to] truth and virtue the same arms which you give [to] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail."—Blair's Rhet., p. 235. The questionable expression, "Ask me blessing," if interpreted analogically, must mean, "Ask for me a blessing," which is more correct and explicit; or, if me be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, "Ask of me a blessing," or, "Ask my blessing." So, "Ask your master leave," ought rather to be, "Ask of your master leave," "Ask your master for leave," or, "Ask your master's leave." The example from Mark ought to be, "They asked him about the parable." Again, the elliptical sentence, "Teach them thy sons," is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, "Teach them to thy sons." To teach is to tell things to persons, or to instruct persons in things; to ask is to request or demand things of or from persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons about or for things. These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more analogical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects.
OBS. 11.—Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you to this or of this, 'Persuadeo hoc tibi. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, Hoc tibi persuadetur, 'You are persuaded of this;' not, Tu persuaderis. 'He trusted me with this affair,' or 'He believed me in this,' Hoc mihi credidit.—Passively, Hoc mihi creditum est. 'I told you this,' Hoc tibi dixi. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' Hoc tibi dictum est; not, Tu dictus es." [No, surely: for, 'Tu dictus es,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'—and, if followed by any case, it must be the nominative.'] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, Hoc tibi dictum est, means not only 'This was told to you,' but 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS.' Liber mihi apatre promissus est, means both 'A book was promised (to) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' Is primum rogatua est sententiam, 'He was first asked for his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked of him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice." See Grants Latin Gram., p. 210.
OBS. 12.—Murray's second censure upon passive government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated. 'The bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the house of lords.' 'Thrasea was forbidden the presence of the emperor.' 'He was shown that very story in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: 'The bishops and abbots were allowed to have (or to take) their seats in the house of lords;' or, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed to the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden to approach the presence of the emperor;' or, 'The presence of the emperor was forbidden to Thrasea:' 'That very story was shown to him in one of his own books.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that—Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice."—Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised me a reward. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., pp. 110 and 112.
OBS. 13.—The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs—probably a vast majority—govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He paid my board; I told you so." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, to name, to mention. What is there that cannot be named or mentioned? Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, to transgress a law, or rule. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or something equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, "He lived a virtuous life."—"Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed"—Gen., xxxvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."—Isaiah, v, 6.
OBS. 14.—Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."—See Guy's Gram., p. 21; Murray's, 180; Ingersoll's, 183; Fisk's, 123; Smith's, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in any sense, or under any construction, that will not, in every sense, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it."—Wright's Gram., p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, "An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective."—Gram., p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as conceive, think, believe, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, "I conceived it (of it) in that light."—Guy's Gram., p. 21. "Did you conceive (of) him to be me?"—Ib., p. 28. With this idea, few will probably concur.
OBS. 15.—We sometimes find the pronoun me needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, "It ascends me into the brain; dries me there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours."—Shakspeare's Falstaff. "Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster me all to their captain, the heart."—Id. This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person; "Fare you well, Falstaff."—Shak. Here you was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb fare. "Fare thee well."—W. Scott. "Farewell to thee."—Id. These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, "Fare thou well." Again: "Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour."—2 Sam., ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy thee for thou. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs. It ought to be thus: "Turn thou aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay hold on one of the young men, and take to thyself his armour." So of the third person: "The king soon found reason to repent him of his provoking such dangerous enemies."—HUME: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 180. Here both of the pronouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.
"Good Margaret, run thee into the parlour;
There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice."—SHAK.: Much Ado.
Notes to Rule V.
NOTE I.—Those verbs or participles which require a regimen, or which signify action that must terminate transitively, should not be used without an object; as, "She affects [kindness,] in order to ingratiate [herself] with you."—"I must caution [you], at the same time, against a servile imitation of any author whatever."—Blair's Rhet., p. 192.
NOTE II.—Those verbs and participles which do not admit an object, or which express action that terminates in themselves, or with the doer, should not be used transitively; as, "The planters grow cotton." Say raise, produce, or cultivate. "Dare you speak lightly of the law, or move that, in a criminal trial, judges should advance one step beyond what it permits them to go?"—Blair's Rhet., p. 278. Say,—"beyond the point to which it permits them to go."
NOTE III.—No transitive verb or participle should assume a government to which its own meaning is not adapted; as, "Thou is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun—personal, it personates 'man.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 131. Say, "It represents man." "Where a string of such sentences succeed each other."—Blair's Rhet., p. 168. Say, "Where many such sentences come in succession."
NOTE IV.—The passive verb should always take for its subject or nominative the direct object of the active-transitive verb from which it is derived; as, (Active,) "They denied me this privilege." (Passive,) "This privilege was denied me;" not, "I was denied this privilege:" for me may be governed by to understood, but privilege cannot, nor can any other regimen be found for it.
NOTE V.—Passive verbs should never be made to govern the objective case, because the receiving of an action supposes it to terminate on the subject or nominative.[356] Errors: "Sometimes it is made use of to give a small degree of emphasis."—L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 197. Say, "Sometimes it is used," &c. "His female characters have been found fault with as insipid."—Hazlitt's Lect., p. 111. Say,—"have been censured;" or,—"have been blamed, decried, dispraised, or condemned."
NOTE VI.—The perfect participle, as such, should never be made to govern any objective term; because, without an active auxiliary, its signification is almost always passive: as, "We shall set down the characters made use of to represent all the elementary sounds."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 5; Fisk's, 34. Say,—"the characters employed, or used."
NOTE VII.—As the different cases in English are not always distinguished by their form, care must be taken lest their construction be found equivocal, or ambiguous; as, "And we shall always find our sentences acquire more vigour and energy when thus retrenched."—Blair's Rhet., p. 111. Say, "We shall always find that our sentences acquire more vigour," &c.; or, "We shall always find our sentences to acquire more vigour and energy when thus retrenched."
NOTE VIII.—In the language of our Bible, rightly quoted or printed, ye is not found in the objective case, nor you in the nominative; scriptural texts that preserve not this distinction of cases, are consequently to be considered inaccurate.
Improprieties for Correction. False Syntax under Rule V.
Under the Rule Itself.—The Objective Form.
"Who should I meet the other day but my old friend!"—Spectator, No. 32.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronoun who is in the nominative case, and is used as the object of the active-transitive verb should meet. But, according to Rule 5th, "A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case." Therefore, who should be whom; thus, "Whom should I meet," &c.]
"Let not him boast that puts on his armour, but he that takes it off."—Barclay's Works, iii, 262. "Let none touch it, but they who are clean."—Sale's Koran, 95. "Let the sea roar, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein."—Psalms, xcviii, 7. "Pray be private, and careful who you trust."—Mrs. Goffe's Letter. "How shall the people know who to entrust with their property and their liberties?"— District School, p. 301. "The chaplain entreated my comrade and I to dress as well as possible."—World Displayed, i, 163. "He that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out."—Tract, No. 3, p. 6. "Who, during this preparation, they constantly and solemnly invoke."—Hope of Israel, p. 84. "Whoever or whatever owes us, is Debtor; whoever or whatever we owe, is Creditor."—Marsh's Book-Keeping, p. 23. "Declaring the curricle was his, and he should have who he chose in it."—Anna Ross, p. 147. "The fact is, Burke is the only one of all the host of brilliant contemporaries who we can rank as a first-rate orator."—The Knickerbocker, May, 1833. "Thus you see, how naturally the Fribbles and the Daffodils have produced the Messalina's of our time:"—Brown's Estimate, ii, 53. "They would find in the Roman list both the Scipio's."—Ib., ii, 76. "He found his wife's clothes on fire, and she just expiring."—New-York Observer. "To present ye holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight."—Barclay's Works, i, 353. "Let the distributer do his duty with simplicity; the superintendent, with diligence; he who performs offices of compassion, with cheerfulness."—Stuart's Romans, xii, 9. "If the crew rail at the master of the vessel, who will they mind?"—Collier's Antoninus, p. 106. "He having none but them, they having none but hee."—DRAYTON'S Polyolbion.
"Thou, nature, partial nature, I arraign! Of thy caprice maternal I complain!"—Burns's Poems, p. 50. "Nor knows he who it is his arms pursue With eager clasps, but loves he knows not who."—Addison's, p. 218.
Under Note I.—Of Verbs Transitive.
"When it gives that sense, and also connects, it is a conjunction."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 116. "Though thou wilt not acknowledge, thou canst not deny the fact."—Murray's Key, p. 209. "They specify, like many other adjectives, and connect sentences."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 114. "The violation of this rule tends so much to perplex and obscure, that it is safer to err by too many short sentences."—Murray's Gram., p. 312. "A few Exercises are subjoined to each important definition, for him to practice upon as he proceeds in committing."—Nutting's Gram., 3d Ed., p. vii. "A verb signifying actively governs the accusative."—Adam's Gram., p. 171; Gould's, 172; Grant's, 199; and others. "Or, any word that will conjugate, is a verb."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 44. "In these two concluding sentences, the author, hastening to finish, appears to write rather carelessly."—Blair's Rhet., p. 216. "He simply reasons on one side of the question, and then finishes."—Ib., p. 306. "Praise to God teaches to be humble and lowly ourselves."—ATTERBURY: ib., p. 304. "This author has endeavored to surpass."—Green's Inductive Gram., p. 54. "Idleness and plezure fateeg az soon az bizziness."—Noah Webster's Essays, p. 402. "And, in conjugating, you must pay particular attention to the manner in which these signs are applied."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 140. "He said Virginia would have emancipated long ago."—The Liberator, ix, 33. "And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience."—2 Cor., x, 6. "However, in these cases, custom generally determines."—Wright's Gram., p. 50. "In proof, let the following cases demonstrate."—Ib., p. 46. "We must surprise, that he should so speedily have forgotten his first principles."—Ib., p. 147. "How should we surprise at the expression, 'This is a soft question!'"—Ib., p. 219. "And such as prefer, can parse it as a possessive adjective."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 89. "To assign all the reasons, that induced to deviate from other grammarians, would lead to a needless prolixity."—Alexander's Gram., p. 4. "The Indicative mood simply indicates or declares."—Farnum's Gram., p. 33.
Under Note Ii.—Of Verbs Intransitive.
"In his seventh chapter he expatiateth himself at great length."—Barclay's Works, iii, 350. "He quarrelleth my bringing some testimonies of antiquity, agreeing with what I say."—Ib., iii, 373. "Repenting him of his design."—Hume's Hist., ii, 56. "Henry knew, that an excommunication could not fail of operating the most dangerous effects."—Ib., ii, 165. "The popular lords did not fail to enlarge themselves on the subject."—Mrs. Macaulay's Hist., iii, 177. "He is always master of his subject; and seems to play himself with it."—Blair's Rhet., p. 445. "But as soon as it comes the length of disease, all his secret infirmities shew themselves."—Ib., p. 256. "No man repented him of his wickedness."—Jeremiah, viii, 6. "Go thee one way or other, either on the right hand, or on the left."—Ezekiel, xxi, 16. "He lies him down by the rivers side."—Walker's Particles, p. 99. "My desire has been for some years past, to retire myself to some of our American plantations."—Cowley's Pref. to his Poems, p. vii. "I fear me thou wilt shrink from the payment of it."—Zenobia, i, 76. "We never recur an idea, without acquiring some combination."—Rippingham's Art of Speaking, p. xxxii.
"Yet more; the stroke of death he must abide,
Then lies him meekly down fast by his brethren's side."—Milton.
Under Note Iii.—Of Verbs Misapplied.
"A parliament forfeited all those who had borne arms against the king."—Hume's Hist., ii, 223. "The practice of forfeiting ships which had been wrecked."—Ib., i, 500. "The nearer his military successes approached him to the throne."—Ib., v, 383. "In the next example, you personifies ladies, therefore it is plural."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 103. "The first its personates vale; the second its represents stream."—Ib., p. 103. "Pronouns do not always avoid the repetition of nouns."—Ib., p. 96. "Very is an adverb of comparison, it compares the adjective good."—Ib., p. 88. "You will please to commit the following paragraph."—Ib., p. 140. "Even the Greek and Latin passive verbs require an auxiliary to conjugate some of their tenses."—Murray's Gram., p. 100. "The deponent verbs, in Latin, require also an auxiliary to conjugate several of their tenses."—Ib., p. 100. "I have no doubt he made as wise and true proverbs, as any body has done since."—Ib., p. 145. "A uniform variety assumes as many set forms as Proteus had shapes."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 72. "When words in apposition follow each other in quick succession."—Nixon's Parser, p. 57. "Where such sentences frequently succeed each other."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 349. "Wisdom leads us to speak and act what is most proper."—Blair's Rhet., p. 99; Murray's Gram., i, 303.
"Jul. Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague? Rom. Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike."—Shak.
Under Note Iv.—Of Passive Verbs.
"We too must be allowed the privilege of forming our own laws."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 134. "For we are not only allowed the use of all the ancient poetic feet," &c.—Ib., p. 259; Kirkham's Elocution, 143; Jamieson's Rhet., 310. "By what code of morals am I denied the right and privilege?"—Dr. Bartlett's Lect., p. 4. "The children of Israel have alone been denied the possession of it."—Keith's Evidences, p. 68. "At York fifteen hundred Jews were refused all quarter."—Ib., p. 73. "He would teach the French language in three lessons, provided he was paid fifty-five dollars in advance."—Chazotte's Essay, p. 4. "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come."—Luke, xvii, 20. "I have been shown a book."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 392. "John Horne Tooke was refused admission only because he had been in holy orders."—Diversions of Purley, i, 60. "Mr. Horne Tooke having taken orders, he was refused admission to the bar."—Churchill's Gram., p. 145. "Its reference to place is lost sight of."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 116. "What striking lesson are we taught by the tenor of this history?"—Bush's Questions, p. 71. "He had been left, by a friend, no less than eighty thousand pounds."—Priestley's Gram., p. 112. "Where there are many things to be done, each must be allowed its share of time and labour."—Johnson's Pref. to Dict., p. xiii. "Presenting the subject in a far more practical form than it has been heretofore given."—Kirkham's Phrenology, p. v. "If a being of entire impartiality should be shown the two companies."—Scott's Pref. to Bible, p. vii. "He was offered the command of the British army."—Grimshaw's Hist., p. 81. "Who had been unexpectedly left a considerable sum."—Johnson's Life of Goldsmith. "Whether a maid or a widow may be granted such a privilege."—Spectator, No. 536. "Happily all these affected terms have been denied the public suffrage."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 199. "Let him next be shewn the parsing table."—Nutting's Gram., p. viii. "Thence, he may be shown the use of the Analyzing Table."—Ib., p. ix. "Pittacus was offered a great sum of money."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 228. "He had been allowed more time for study."—Ib., p. 229. "If the walks were a little taken care of that lie between them."—Addison's Spect., No. 414. "Suppose I am offered an office or a bribe."—Pierpont's Discourse, Jan. 27, 1839.
"Am I one chaste, one last embrace deny'd?
Shall I not lay me by his clay-cold side?"
—Rowe's Lucan, B. ix, l. 103.
Under Note V.—Passive Verbs Transitive.
"The preposition to is made use of before nouns of place, when they follow verbs and participles of motion."—Murray's Gram., p. 203; Ingersoll's, 231; Greenlef's, 35; Fisk's, 143; Smith's, 170; Guy's, 90; Fowler's, 555. "They were refused entrance into the house."—Murray's Key, ii, 204. "Their separate signification has been lost sight of."—Horne Tooke, ii, 422. "But, whenever ye is made use of, it must be in the nominative, and never in the objective, case."—Cobbett's E. Gram., 58. "It is said, that more persons than one are paid handsome salaries, for taking care to see acts of parliament properly worded."—Churchill's Gram., p. 334. "The following Rudiments of English Grammar, have been made use of in the University of Pennsylvania."—DR. ROGERS: in Harrison's Gram., p. 2. "It never should be lost sight of."—Newman's Rhetoric, p. 19. "A very curious fact hath been taken notice of by those expert metaphysicians."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 281. "The archbishop interfered that Michelet's lectures might be put a stop to."—The Friend, ix, 378. "The disturbances in Gottengen have been entirely put an end to."—Daily Advertiser. "Besides those that are taken notice of in these exceptions."—Priestley's Gram., p. 6. "As one, two, or three auxiliary verbs are made use of."—Ib., p. 24. "The arguments which have been made use of."—Addison's Evidences, p. 32. "The circumstance is properly taken notice of by the author."—Blair's Rhet., p. 217. "Patagonia has never been taken possession of by any European nation."—Cumming's Geog., p. 62. "He will be found fault withal no more, i. e. not hereafter."—Walker's Particles, p. 226. "The thing was to be put an end to somehow."—Leigh Hunt's Byron, p. 15. "In 1798, the Papal Territory was taken possession of by the French."—Pinnock's Geog., p. 223. "The idea has not for a moment been lost sight of by the Board."—Common School Journal, i, 37. "I shall easily be excused the labour of more transcription."—Johnson's Life of Dryden. "If I may be allowed that expression."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 259, and 288. "If without offence I may be indulged the observation."—Ib., p. 295. "There are other characters, which are frequently made use of in composition."— Murray's Gram., p. 280; Ingersoll's, 293. "Such unaccountable infirmities might be in many, perhaps in most, cases got the better of."—Seattle's Moral Science, i, 153. "Which ought never to be had recourse to."—Ib., i, 186. "That the widows may be taken care of."—Barclay's Works, i, 499. "Other cavils will yet be taken notice of."—Pope's Pref. to Homer. "Which implies, that all Christians are offered eternal salvation."—West's Letters, p. 149. "Yet even the dogs are allowed the crumbs which fall from their master's table."—Campbell's Gospels, Matt., xv. 27. "For we say the light within must be taken heed unto."—Barclay's Works, i, 148. "This sound of a is taken notice of in Steele's Grammar."—Walker's Dict., p. 22. "One came to be paid ten guineas for a pair of silver buckles."—Castle Rackrent, p. 104. "Let him, therefore, be carefully shewn the application of the several questions in the table."—Nutting's Gram., p. 8, "After a few times, it is no longer taken notice of by the hearers."—Sheridan's Lect., p. 182. "It will not admit of the same excuse, nor be allowed the same indulgence, by people of any discernment."—Ibid. "Inanimate things may be made property of."—Beanie's M. Sci., p. 355.
"And, when he's bid a liberaller price,
Will not be sluggish in the work, nor nice."—Butler's Poems, p. 162.
Under Note Vi.—Of Perfect Participles.
"All the words made use of to denote spiritual and intellectual things, are in their origin metaphors."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 380. "A reply to an argument commonly made use of by unbelievers."—Blair's Rhet., p. 293. "It was heretofore the only form made use of in the preter tenses."—Dr. Ash's Gram., p. 47. "Of the points, and other characters made use of in writing."—Ib., p. xv. "If thy be the personal pronoun made use of."—Walker's Dict. "The Conjunction is a word made use of to connect sentences."—Burn's Gram., p. 28. "The points made use of to answer these purposes are the four following."—Harrison's Gram., p. 67. "Incense signifies perfumes exhaled by fire, and made use of in religious ceremonies."—Murray's Key, p. 171. "In most of his orations, there is too much art; even carried the length of ostentation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 246. "To illustrate the great truth, so often lost sight of in our times."—Common School Journal, I, 88. "The principal figures, made use of to affect the heart, are Exclamation, Confession, Deprecation, Commination, and Imprecation."—Formey's Belles-Lettres, p. 133. "Disgusted at the odious artifices made use of by the Judge."—Junius, p. 13. "The whole reasons of our being allotted a condition, out of which so much wickedness and misery would in fact arise."—Butler's Analogy p. 109. "Some characteristieal circumstance being generally invented or laid hold of."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 246.
"And by is likewise us'd with Names that shew
The Means made use of, or the Method how."—Ward's Gram., p. 105.
Under Note Vii.—Constructions Ambiguous.
"Many adverbs admit of degrees of comparison as well as adjectives."—Priestley's Gram., p. 133. "But the author, who, by the number and reputation of his works, formed our language more than any one, into its present state, is Dryden."—Blair's Rhet., p. 180. "In some States, Courts of Admiralty have no juries, nor Courts of Chancery at all."—Webster's Essays, p, 146. "I feel myself grateful to my friend."—Murray's Key, p. 276. "This requires a writer to have, himself, a very clear apprehension of the object he means to present to us."—Blair's Rhet., p. 94. "Sense has its own harmony, as well as sound."—lb., p. 127. "The apostrophe denotes the omission of an i which was formerly inserted, and made an addition of a syllable to the word."—Priestley's Gram., p. 67. "There are few, whom I can refer to, with more advantage than Mr. Addison."—Blair's Rhet., p. 139. "DEATH, in theology, [is a] perpetual separation from God, and eternal torments."—Webster's Dict. "That could inform the traveler as well as the old man himself!"—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 345.
Under Note Viii.—Ye and You in Scripture.
"Ye daughters of Rabbah, gird ye with sackcloth."—ALGER'S BIBLE: Jer., xlix, 3. "Wash ye, make you clean."—Brown's Concordance, w. Wash. "Strip ye, and make ye bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins."—ALGER'S BIBLE: Isaiah, xxxii, 11. "You are not ashamed that you make yourselves strange to me."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: Job, xix, 3. "You are not ashamed that ye make yourselves strange to me."—ALGER'S BIBLE: ib. "If you knew the gift of God."—Brown's Concordance, w. Knew. "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I know ye not."—Penington's Works, ii, 122.
Rule Vi.—Same Cases.
A Noun or a Pronoun put after a verb or participle not transitive, agrees in case with a preceding noun or pronoun referring to the same thing: as, "It is I."—"These are they."—"The child was named John."—"It could not be he."—"The Lord sitteth King forever."—Psalms, xxix, 10.
"What war could ravish, commerce could bestow,
And he return'd a friend, who came a foe."
—Pope, Ep. iii, l. 206.
Observations on Rule VI.
OBS. 1.—Active-transitive verbs, and their imperfect and preperfect participles, always govern the objective case; but active-intransitive, passive, and neuter verbs, and their participles, take the same case after as before them, when both words refer to the same thing. The latter are rightly supposed not to govern[357] any case; nor are they in general followed by any noun or pronoun. But, because they are not transitive, some of them become connectives to such words as are in the same case and signify the same thing. That is, their finite tenses may be followed by a nominative, and their infinitives and participles by a nominative or an objective, agreeing with a noun or a pronoun which precedes them. The cases are the same, because the person or thing is one; as, "I am he."—"Thou art Peter."—"Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent."—Jefferson's Notes, p. 129. Identity is both the foundation and the characteristic of this construction. We chiefly use it to affirm or deny, to suggest or question, the sameness of things; but sometimes figuratively, to illustrate the relations of persons or things by comparison:[358] as, "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman."—John, xv, 1. "I am the vine, ye are the branches."—John, xv, 5. Even the names of direct opposites, are sometimes put in the same case, under this rule; as,
"By such a change thy darkness is made light,
Thy chaos order, and thy weakness might."—Cowper, Vol. i, p. 88.
OBS. 2.—In this rule, the terms after and preceding refer rather to the order of the sense and construction, than to the mere placing of the words; for the words in fact admit of various positions. The proper subject of the verb is the nominative to it, or before it, by Rule 2d; and the other nominative, however placed, is understood to be that which comes after it, by Rule 6th. In general, however, the proper subject precedes the verb, and the other word follows it, agreeably to the literal sense of the rule. But when the proper subject is placed after the verb, as in certain instances specified in the second observation under Rule 2d, the explanatory nominative is commonly introduced still later; as, "But be thou an example of the believers."—1 Tim. iv, 12. "But what! is thy servant a dog?"—2 Kings, viii, 13. "And so would I, were I Parmenio."—Goldsmith. "O Conloch's daughter! is it thou?"—Ossian. But in the following example, on the contrary, there is a transposition of the entire lines, and the verb agrees with the two nominatives in the latter:
"To thee were solemn toys or empty show,
The robes of pleasure and the veils of wo."—Dr. Johnson.
OBS. 3.—In interrogative sentences, the terms are usually transposed,[359] or both are placed after the verb; as, "Am I a Jew?"—John, xviii, 35. "Art thou a king then?"—Ib., ver. 37. "What is truth?"—Ib., ver. 38. "Who art thou?"—Ib., i, 19. "Art thou Elias?"—Ib., i, 21. "Tell me, Alciphron, is not distance a line turned endwise to the eye?"—Berkley's Dialogues, p. 161.
"Whence, and what art thou, execrable shape?"—Milton.
"Art thou that traitor angel? art thou he?"—Idem.
OBS. 4.—In a declarative sentence also, there may be a rhetorical or poetical transposition of one or both of the terms: as, "And I thy victim now remain."—Francis's Horace, ii, 45. "To thy own dogs a prey thou shalt be made."—Pope's Homer, "I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame."—Job, xxix, 15. "Far other scene is Thrasymenè now."—Byron. In the following sentence, the latter term is palpably misplaced: "It does not clearly appear at first what the antecedent is to they."—Blair's Rhet., p. 218. Say rather: "It does not clearly appear at first, what is the antecedent to [the pronoun] they." In examples transposed like the following, there is an elegant ellipsis of the verb to which the pronoun is nominative; as, am, art, &c.
"When pain and anguish wring the brow,
A ministering angel thou."—Scott's Marmion.
"The forum's champion, and the people's chief,
Her new-born Numa thou—with reign, alas! too brief."—Byron.
"For this commission'd, I forsook the sky—
Nay, cease to kneel—thy fellow-servant I."—Parnell.
OBS. 5.—In some peculiar constructions, both words naturally come before the verb; as, "I know not who she is."—"Who did you say it was?"—"I know not how to tell thee who I am."—Romeo. "Inquire thou whose son the stripling is."—1 Sam., xvii, 56. "Man would not be the creature which he now is."—Blair. "I could not guess who it should be."—Addison. And they are sometimes placed in this manner by hyberbaton [sic—KTH], or transposition; as, "Yet he it is."—Young. "No contemptible orator he was."—Dr. Blair. "He it is to whom I shall give a sop."—John, xiii, 26. "And a very noble personage Cato is."—Blair's Rhet., p. 457. "Clouds they are without water."—Jude, 12.
"Of worm or serpent kind it something looked,
But monstrous, with a thousand snaky heads."—Pollok, B. i, l. 183.
OBS. 6.—As infinitives and participles have no nominatives of their own, such of them as are not transitive in their nature, may take different cases after them; and, in order to determine what case it is that follows them, the learner must carefully observe what preceding word denotes the same person or thing, and apply the principle of the rule accordingly. This word being often remote, and sometimes understood, the sense is the only clew to the construction. Examples: "Who then can bear the thought of being an outcast from his presence?"—Addison. Here outcast agrees with who, and not with thought. "I cannot help being so passionate an admirer as I am."—Steele. Here admirer agrees with I. "To recommend what the soberer part of mankind look upon to be a trifle."—Steele. Here trifle agrees with what as relative, the objective governed by upon. "It would be a romantic madness, for a man to be a lord in his closet."—Id. Here madness is in the nominative case, agreeing with it; and lord, in the objective, agreeing with man. "To affect to be a lord in one's closet, would be a romantic madness." In this sentence also, lord is in the objective, after to be; and madness, in the nominative, after would be.
"'My dear Tibullus!' If that will not do,
Let me be Horace, and be Ovid you."—Pope, B. ii, Ep. ii, 143.
OBS. 7.—An active-intransitive or a neuter participle in ing, when governed by a preposition, is often followed by a noun or a pronoun the case of which depends not on the preposition, but on the case which goes before. Example: "The Jews were in a particular manner ridiculed for being a credulous people."—Addison's Evidences, p. 28. Here people is in the nominative case, agreeing with Jews. Again: "The learned pagans ridiculed the Jews for being a credulous people." Here people is in the objective case, because the preceding noun Jews is so. In both instances the preposition for governs the participle being, and nothing else. "The atrocious crime of being a young man, I shall neither attempt to palliate or deny."—PITT: Bullions's E. Gram., p. 82; S. S. Greene's, 174. Sanborn has this text, with "nor" for "or."—Analytical Gram., p. 190. This example has been erroneously cited, as one in which the case of the noun after the participle is not determined by its relation to any other word. Sanborn absurdly supposes it to be "in the nominative independent." Bullions as strangely tells us, "it may correctly be called the objective indefinite"—like me in the following example: "He was not sure of its being me."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 82. This latter text I take to be bad English. It should be, "He was not sure of it as being me;" or, "He was not sure that it was I." But, in the text above, there is an evident transposition. The syntactical order is this: "I shall neither deny nor attempt to palliate the atrocious crime of being a young man." The words man and I refer to the same person, and are therefore in the same case, according to the rule which I have given above.
OBS. 8.—S. S. Greene, in his late Grammar, improperly denominates this case after the participle being, "the predicate-nominative," and imagines that it necessarily remains a nominative even when the possessive case precedes the participle. If he were right in this, there would be an important exception to Rule 6th above. But so singularly absurd is his doctrine about "abridged predicates," that in general the abridging shows an increase of syllables, and often a conversion of good English into bad. For example: "It [the predicate] remains unchanged in the nominative, when, with the participle of the copula, it becomes a verbal noun, limited by the possessive case of the subject; as, 'That he was a foreigner prevented his election,'='His being a foreigner prevented his election.'"—Greene's Analysis, p. 169. Here the number of syllables is unaltered; but foreigner is very improperly called "a verbal noun," and an example which only lacks a comma, is changed to what Wells rightly calls an "anomalous expression," and one wherein that author supposes foreigner and his to be necessarily in the same case. But Greene varies this example into other "abridged forms," thus: "I knew that he was a foreigner," = "I knew his being, or of his being a foreigner." "The fact that he was a foreigner, = of his being a foreigner, was undeniable." "When he was first called a foreigner, = on his being first called a foreigner, his anger was excited."—Ib., p. 171. All these changes enlarge, rather than abridge, the expression; and, at the same time, make it questionable English, to say the least of it.
OBS. 9.—In some examples, the adverb there precedes the participle, and we evidently have nothing by which to determine the case that follows; as, "These judges were twelve in number. Was this owing to there being twelve primary deities among the Gothic nations?"—Webster's Essays, p. 263. Say rather: "Was this because there were twelve primary deities among the Gothic nations?" "How many are injured by Adam's fall, that know nothing of there ever being such a man in the world!"—Barclay's Apology, p. 185. Say rather,—"who know not that there ever was such a man in the world!"
OBS. 10.—In some other examples, we find a possessive before the participle, and a doubtful case after it; as, "This our Saviour himself was pleased to make use of as the strongest argument of his being the promised Messiah"—Addison's Evidences, p. 81. "But my chief affliction consisted in my being singled out from all the other boys, by a lad about fifteen years of age, as a proper object upon whom he might let loose the cruelty of his temper."—Cowper's Memoir, p. 13. "[Greek: Tou patros [ontos] onou euthus hypemnæsthæ]. He had some sort of recollection of his father's being an ass"—Collectanea Græca Minora, Notæ, p. 7. This construction, though not uncommon, is anomalous in more respects than one. Whether or not it is worthy to form an exception to the rule of same cases, or even to that of possessives, the reader may judge from the observations made on it under the latter. I should rather devise some way to avoid it, if any can be found—and I believe there can; as, "This our Saviour himself was pleased to advance as the strongest proof that he was the promised Messiah."—"But my chief affliction consisted in this, that I was singled out," &c. The story of the mule is, "He seemed to recollect on a sudden that his father was an ass." This is the proper meaning of the Greek text above; but the construction is different, the Greek nouns being genitives in apposition.
OBS. 11.—A noun in the nominative case sometimes follows a finite verb, when the equivalent subject that stands before the verb, is not a noun or pronoun, but a phrase or a sentence which supplies the place of a nominative; as, "That the barons and freeholders derived their authority from kings, is wholly a mistake."—Webster's Essays, p. 277. "To speak of a slave as a member of civil society, may, by some, be regarded a solecism."—Stroud's Sketch, p. 65. Here mistake and solecism are as plainly nominatives, as if the preceding subjects had been declinable words.
OBS. 12.—When a noun is put after an abstract infinitive that is not transitive, it appears necessarily to be in the objective case,[360] though not governed by the verb; for if we supply any noun to which such infinitive may be supposed to refer, it must be introduced before the verb by the preposition for: as, "To be an Englishman in London, a Frenchman in Paris, a Spaniard in Madrid, is no easy matter; and yet it is necessary."—Home's Art of Thinking, p. 89. That is, "For a traveller to be an Englishman in London," &c. "It is certainly as easy to be a scholar, as a gamester."—Harris's Hermes, p. 425. That is, "It is as easy for a young man to be a scholar, as it is for him to be a gamester." "To be an eloquent speaker, in the proper sense of the word, is far from being a common or easy attainment."—Blair's Rhet., p. 337. Here attainment is in the nominative, after is—or, rather after being, for it follows both; and speaker, in the objective after to be. "It is almost as hard a thing [for a man] to be a poet in despite of fortune, as it is [for one to be a poet] in despite of nature."—Cowley's Preface to his Poems, p. vii.
OBS. 13.—Where precision is necessary, loose or abstract infinitives are improper; as, "But to be precise, signifies, that they express that idea, and no more."—Blair's Rhet., p. 94; Murray's Gram., 301; Jamieson's Rhet., 64. Say rather: "But, for an author's words to be precise, signifies, that they express his exact idea, and nothing more or less."
OBS. 14.—The principal verbs that take the same case after as before them, except those which are passive, are the following: to be, to stand, to sit, to lie, to live, to grow, to become, to turn, to commence, to die, to expire, to come, to go, to range, to wander, to return, to seem, to appear, to remain, to continue, to reign. There are doubtless some others, which admit of such a construction; and of some of these, it is to be observed, that they are sometimes transitive, and govern the objective: as, "To commence a suit."—Johnson. "O continue thy loving kindness unto them."—Psalms, xxxvi, 10. "A feather will turn the scale."—Shak. "Return him a trespass offering."—1 Samuel. "For it becomes me so to speak."—Dryden. But their construction with like cases is easily distinguished by the sense; as, "When I commenced author, my aim was to amuse."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 286. "Men continue men's destroyers."—Nixon's Parser, p. 56. "'Tis most just, that thou turn rascal"—Shak., Timon of Athens. "He went out mate, but he returned captain."—Murray's Gram., p. 182. "After this event he became physician to the king."—Ib. That is, "When I began to be an author," &c.
"Ev'n mean self-love becomes, by force divine,
The scale to measure others' wants by thine."—Pope.
OBS. 15.—The common instructions of our English grammars, in relation to the subject of the preceding rule, are exceedingly erroneous and defective. For example: "The verb TO BE, has always a nominative case after it, unless it be in the infinitive mode."—Lowth's Gram., p. 77. "The verb TO BE requires the same case after it as before it."—Churchill's Gram., p. 142. "The verb TO BE, through all its variations, has the same case after it, expressed or understood, as that which next precedes it."—Murray's Gram., p. 181; Alger's, 62; Merchant's, 91; Putnam's, 116; Smith's, 97; and many others. "The verb TO BE has usually the same case after it, as that which immediately precedes it."—Hall's Gram., p. 31. "Neuter verbs have the same case after them, as that which next precedes them."—Folker's Gram., p. 14. "Passive verbs which signify naming, and others of a similar nature, have the same case before and after them."—Murray's Gram., p. 182. "A Noun or Pronoun used in predication with a verb, is in the Independent Case. EXAMPLES—'Thou art a scholar.' 'It is I.' 'God is love.'"—S. W. Clark's Pract. Gram., p. 149. So many and monstrous are the faults of these rules, that nothing but very learned and reverend authority, could possibly impose such teaching anywhere. The first, though written by Lowth, is not a whit wiser than to say, "The preposition to has always an infinitive mood after it, unless it be a preposition." And this latter absurdity is even a better rule for all infinitives, than the former for all predicated nominatives. Nor is there much more fitness in any of the rest. "The verb TO BE, through all," or even in any, of its parts, has neither "always" nor usually a case "expressed or understood" after it; and, even when there is a noun or a pronoun put after it, the case is, in very many instances, not to be determined by that which "next" or "immediately" precedes the verb. Examples: "A sect of freethinkers is a sum of ciphers."—Bentley. "And I am this day weak, though anointed king."—2 Sam., iii, 39. "What made Luther a great man, was his unshaken reliance on God."—Kortz's Life of Luther, p. 13. "The devil offers his service; He is sent with a positive commission to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets."—Calvin's Institutes, p. 131. It is perfectly certain that in these four texts, the words sum, king, reliance, and spirit, are nominatives, after the verb or participle; and not objectives, as they must be, if there were any truth in the common assertion, "that the two cases, which, in the construction of the sentence, are the next before and after it, must always be alike."—Smith's New Gram., p. 98. Not only may the nominative before the verb be followed by an objective, but the nominative after it may be preceded by a possessive; as, "Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, was not a prophet's son."—"It is the king's chapel, and it is the king's court."—Amos, vii, 13. How ignorant then must that person be, who cannot see the falsity of the instructions above cited! How careless the reader who overlooks it!
Notes to Rule VI.
NOTE I.—The putting of a noun in an unknown case after a participle or a participial noun, produces an anomaly which it seems better to avoid; for the cases ought to be clear, even in exceptions to the common rules of construction. Examples: (1.) "WIDOWHOOD, n. The state of being a widow."—Webster's Dict. Say rather, "WIDOWHOOD, n. The state of a widow."—Johnson, Walker, Worcester. (2.) "I had a suspicion of the fellow's being a swindler/" Say rather, "I had a suspicion that the fellow was a swindler." (3.) "To prevent its being a dry detail of terms."—Buck. Better, "To prevent it from being a dry detail of terms." [361]
NOTE II.—The nominative which follows a verb or participle, ought to accord in signification, either literally or figuratively, with the preceding term which is taken for a sign of the same thing. Errors: (1.) "To be convicted of bribery, was then a crime altogether unpardonable."—Blair's Rhet., p. 265. To be convicted of a crime, is not the crime itself; say, therefore, "Bribery was then a crime altogether unpardonable." (2.) "The second person is the object of the Imperative."—Murray's Gram., Index, ii, 292. Say rather, "The second person is the subject of the imperative;" for the object of a verb is the word governed by it, and not its nominative.
Improprieties for Correction.
False Syntax under Rule VI.
Under the Rule Itself.—Of Proper Identity.
"Who would not say, 'If it be me,' rather than, If it be I?"—Priestley's Gram., p. 105.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronoun me,—which comes after the neuter verb be, is in the objective case, and does not agree with the pronoun it, the verb's nominative,[362] which refers to the same thing. But, according to Rule 6th, "A noun or a pronoun put after a verb or participle not transitive, agrees in case with a preceding noun or pronoun referring to the same thing." Therefore, me should be I; thus, "Who would not say, 'If it be I,' rather than, 'If it be me?'"]
"Who is there? It is me."—Priestley, ib., p. 104. "It is him."—Id., ib., 104. "Are these the houses you were speaking of? Yes, they are them."—Id., ib., 104. "It is not me you are in love with."—Addison's Spect., No. 290; Priestley's Gram., p. 104; and Campbell's Rhet., p. 203. "It cannot be me."—SWIFT: Priestley's Gram., p. 104. "To that which once was thee."—PRIOR: ib., 104. "There is but one man that she can have, and that is me."—CLARISSA: ib., 104. "We enter, as it were, into his body, and become, in some measure, him."—ADAM SMITH: ib., p. 105. "Art thou proud yet? Ay, that I am not thee."—Shak., Timon. "He knew not whom they were."—Milnes, Greek Gram., p. 234. "Who do you think me to be?"—Priestley's Gram., p. 108. "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?"—Matt., xvi, 13. "But whom say ye that I am?"—Ib., xvi, 15.—"Whom think ye that I am? I am not he."—Acts, xiii, 25. "No; I am mistaken; I perceive it is not the person whom I supposed it was."—Winter in London, ii, 66. "And while it is Him I serve, life is not without value."—Zenobia, i, 76. "Without ever dreaming it was him."—Life of Charles XII, p. 271. "Or he was not the illiterate personage whom he affected to be."—Montgomery's Lect. "Yet was he him, who was to be the greatest apostle of the Gentiles."—Barclay's Works, i, 540. "Sweet was the thrilling ecstacy; I know not if 'twas love, or thee."—Queen's Wake, p. 14. "Time was, when none would cry, that oaf was me."—Dryden, Prol. "No matter where the vanquish'd be, nor whom."—Rowe's Lucan, B. i, l. 676. "No, I little thought it had been him."—Life of Oration. "That reverence and godly fear, whose object is 'Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell.'"—Maturin's Sermons, p. 312. "It is us that they seek to please, or rather to astonish."—West's Letters, p. 28. "Let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac."—Gen., xxiv, 14. "Although I knew it to be he."—Dickens's Notes, p. 9. "Dear gentle youth, is't none but thee?"—Dorset's Poems, p. 4. "Whom do they say it is?"—Fowler's E. Gram., §493.
"These are her garb, not her; they but express
Her form, her semblance, her appropriate dress."—Hannah More.
Under Note I.—The Case Doubtful.
"I had no knowledge of there being any connexion between them."—Stone, on Freemasonry, p. 25. "To promote iniquity in others, is nearly the same as being the actors of it ourselves."—Murray's Key, p. 170. "It must arise from feeling delicately ourselves."—Blair's Rhet., p. 330; Murray's Gram., 248. "By reason of there not having been exercised a competent physical power for their enforcement."—Mass. Legislature, 1839. "PUPILAGE, n. The state of being a scholar."—Johnson, Walker, Webster, Worcester. "Then the other part's being the definition would make it include all verbs of every description."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 343. "John's being my friend,[363] saved me from inconvenience."—Ib., p. 201. "William's having become a judge, changed his whole demeanor."—Ib., p. 201. "William's having been a teacher, was the cause of the interest which he felt."—Ib., p. 216. "The being but one among many stifleth the chidings of conscience."—Book of Thoughts, p. 131. "As for its being esteemed a close translalation [sic—KTH], I doubt not many have been led into that error by the shortness of it."—Pope's Pref. to Homer. "All presumption of death's being the destruction of living beings, must go upon supposition that they are compounded, and so discerptible."—Butler's Analogy, p. 63. "This argues rather their being proper names."—Churchill's Gram., p. 382. "But may it not be retorted, that its being a gratification is that which excites our resentment?"—Campbell's Rhet., p. 145. "Under the common notion, of its being a system of the whole poetical art."—Blair's Rhet., p. 401. "Whose time or other circumstances forbid their becoming classical scholars."—Literary Convention, p. 113. "It would preclude the notion of his being a merely fictitious personage."—Philological Museum, i, 446. "For, or under pretence of their being heretics or infidels."—The Catholic Oath; Geo. III, 31st. "We may here add Dr. Home's sermon on Christ's being the Object of religious Adoration."—Relig. World, Vol. ii, p. 200. "To say nothing of Dr. Priestley's being a strenuous advocate," &c.—Ib., ii, 207. "By virtue of Adam's being their public head."—Ib., ii, 233. "Objections against there being any such moral plan as this."—Butler's Analogy, p. 57. "A greater instance of a man's being a blockhead."—Spect., No. 520. "We may insure or promote its being a happy state of existence to ourselves."—Gurney's Evidences, p. 86. "By its often falling a victim to the same kind of unnatural treatment."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 41. "Their appearing foolishness is no presumption against this."—Butler's Analogy, p. 189. "But what arises from their being offences; i. e. from their being liable to be perverted."—Ib., p. 185. "And he entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God."—Acts, xviii, 7.
Under Note Ii.—Of False Identification.
"But to be popular, he observes, is an ambiguous word."—Blair's Rhet., p. 307. "The infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is often the nominative case to a verb."—L. Murray's Index, Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 290. "When any person, in speaking, introduces his own name, it is the first person; as, 'I, James, of the city of Boston.'"—R. C. Smith's New Gram., p. 43. "The name of the person spoken to, is the second person; as, 'James, come to me.'"—Ibid. "The name of the person or thing spoken of, or about, is the third person; as, 'James has come.'"—Ibid. "The object [of a passive verb] is always its subject or nominative case."—Ib., p. 62. "When a noun is in the nominative case to an active verb, it is the actor."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 44. "And the person commanded, is its nominative."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 120. "The first person is that who speaks."—Pasquier's Lévizac, p. 91. "The Conjugation of a Verb is its different variations or inflections throughout the Moods and Tenses."—Wright's Gram., p. 80. "The first person is the speaker. The second person is the one spoken to. The third person is the one spoken of."—Parker and Fox's Gram., Part i, p. 6; Hiley's, 18. "The first person is the one that speaks, or the speaker."—Sanborn's Gram., pp. 23 and 75. "The second person is the one that is spoken to, or addressed."—Ibid. "The third person is the one that is spoken of, or that is the topic of conversation."—Ibid. "I, is the first person Singular. We, is the first person Plural."—Murray's Gram., p. 51; Alger's, Ingersoll's, and many others. "Thou, is the second person Singular. Ye or you, is the second person Plural."—Ibid. "He, she, or it, is the third person Singular. They, is the third person Plural."—Ibid. "The nominative case is the actor, or subject of the verb."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 43. "The noun John is the actor, therefore John is in the nominative case."—Ibid. "The actor is always the nominative case."—Smith's New Gram., p. 62. "The nominative case is always the agent or actor."—Mack's Gram., p. 67. "Tell the part of speech each name is."—J. Flint's Gram., p. 6. "What number is boy? Why? What number is pens? Why?"—Ib., p. 27. "The speaker is the first person, the person spoken to, the second person, and the person or thing spoken of, is the third person."—Ib., p. 26. "What nouns are masculine gender? All males are masculine gender."—Ib., p. 28. "An interjection is a sudden emotion of the mind."—Barrett's Gram., p. 62.
Rule Vii.—Objectives.
A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case: as, "The temple of fame stands upon the grave: the flame that burns upon its altars, is kindled from the ashes of great men"—Hazlitt.
"Life is His gift, from whom whate'er life needs, With ev'ry good and perfect gift, proceeds."—Cowper, Vol. i, p. 95.
Observations on Rule VII.
OBS. 1.—To this rule there are no exceptions; for prepositions, in English, govern no other case than the objective.[364] But the learner should observe that most of our prepositions may take the imperfect participle for their object, and some, the pluperfect, or preperfect; as, "On opening the trial they accused him of having defrauded them."—"A quick wit, a nice judgment, &c., could not raise this man above being received only upon the foot of contributing to mirth and diversion."—Steele. And the preposition to is often followed by an infinitive verb; as, "When one sort of wind is said to whistle, and an other to roar; when a serpent is said to hiss, a fly to buzz, and falling timber to crash; when a stream is said to flow, and hail to rattle; the analogy between the word and the thing signified, is plainly discernible."—Blair's Rhet., p. 55. But let it not be supposed that participles or infinitives, when they are governed by prepositions, are therefore in the objective case; for case is no attribute of either of these classes of words: they are indeclinable in English, whatever be the relations they assume. They are governed as participles, or as infinitives, and not as cases. The mere fact of government is so far from creating the modification governed, that it necessarily presupposes it to exist, and that it is something cognizable in etymology.
OBS. 2.—The brief assertion, that, "Prepositions govern the objective case," which till very lately our grammarians have universally adopted as their sole rule for both terms, the governing and the governed,—the preposition and its object,—is, in respect to both, somewhat exceptionable, being but partially and lamely applicable to either. It neither explains the connecting nature of the preposition, nor applies to all objectives, nor embraces all the terms which a preposition may govern. It is true, that prepositions, when they introduce declinable words, or words that have cases, always govern the objective; but the rule is liable to be misunderstood, and is in fact often misapplied, as if it meant something more than this. Besides, in no other instance do grammarians attempt to parse both the governing word and the governed, by one and the same rule. I have therefore placed the objects of this government here, where they belong in the order of the parts of speech, expressing the rule in such terms as cannot be mistaken; and have also given, in its proper place, a distinct rule for the construction of the preposition itself. See Rule 23d.
OBS. 3.—Prepositions are sometimes elliptically construed with adjectives, the real object of the relation being thought to be some objective noun understood: as, in vain, in secret, at first, on high; i. e. in a vain manner, in secret places, at the first time, on high places. Such phrases usually imply time, place, degree, or manner, and are equivalent to adverbs. In parsing, the learner may supply the ellipsis.
OBS. 4.—In some phrases, a preposition seems to govern a perfect participle; but these expressions are perhaps rather to be explained as being elliptical: as, "To give it up for lost;"—"To take that for granted which is disputed."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 109. That is, perhaps, "To give it up for a thing lost;"—"To take that for a thing granted," &c. In the following passage the words ought and should are employed in such a manner that it is difficult to say to what part of speech they belong: "It is that very character of ought and should which makes justice a law to us; and the same character is applicable to propriety, though perhaps more faintly than to justice."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 286. The meaning seems to be, "It is that very character of being owed and required, that makes justice a law to us;" and this mode of expression, as it is more easy to be parsed, is perhaps more grammatical than his Lordship's. But, as preterits are sometimes put by enallage for participles, a reference of them to this figure may afford a mode of explanation in parsing, whenever they are introduced by a preposition, and not by a nominative: as, "A kind of conquest Cæsar made here; but made not here his brag Of, came, and saw, and overcame"—Shak., Cymb., iii, 1. That is,—"of having come, and seen, and overcome." Here, however, by assuming that a sentence is the object of the preposition, we may suppose the pronoun I to be understood, as ego is in the bulletin referred to, "Veni, vidi, vici." For, as a short sentence is sometimes made the subject of a verb, so is it sometimes made the object of a preposition; as,
"Earth's highest station ends in, 'here he lies;'
And 'dust to dust,' concludes her noblest song."—Young.
OBS. 5.—In some instances, prepositions precede adverbs; as, at once, at unawares, from thence, from above, till now, till very lately, for once, for ever. Here the adverb, though an indeclinable word, appears to be made the object of the preposition. It is in fact used substantively, and governed by the preposition. The term forever is often written as one word, and, as such, is obviously an adverb. The rest are what some writers would call adverbial phrases; a term not very consistent with itself, or with the true idea of parsing. If different parts of speech are to be taken together as having the nature of an adverb, they ought rather to coalesce and be united; for the verb to parse, being derived from the Latin pars, a part, implies in general a distinct recognition of the elements or words of every phrase or sentence.
OBS. 6.—Nouns of time, measure, distance, or value, have often so direct a relation to verbs or adjectives, that the prepositions which are supposed to govern them, are usually suppressed; as, "We rode sixty miles that day." That is,—"through sixty miles on that day." "The country is not a farthing richer."—Webster's Essays, p. 122. That is,—"richer by a farthing." "The error has been copied times without number."—Ib., p. 281. That is,—"on or at times innumerable." "A row of columns ten feet high, and a row twice that height, require different proportions." Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 344. That is,—"high to ten feet," and, "a row of twice that height." "Altus sex pedes, High on or at six feet."—Dr. Murray's Hist of Europ. Lang., ii, 150. All such nouns are in the objective case, and, in parsing them, the learner may supply the ellipsis;[365] or, perhaps it might be as well, to say, as do B. H. Smart and some others, that the noun is an objective of time, measure, or value, taken adverbially, and relating directly to the verb or adjective qualified by it. Such expressions as, "A board of six feet long,"—"A boy of twelve years old," are wrong. Either strike out the of, or say, "A board of six feet in length,"—"A boy of twelve years of age;" because this preposition is not suited to the adjective, nor is the adjective fit to qualify the time or measure.
OBS. 7.—After the adjectives like, near, and nigh, the preposition to or unto is often understood;[366] as, "It is like [to or unto] silver."—Allen. "How like the former."—Dryden. "Near yonder copse."—Goldsmith. "Nigh this recess."—Garth. As similarity and proximity are relations, and not qualities, it might seem proper to call like, near, and nigh, prepositions; and some grammarians have so classed the last two. Dr. Johnson seems to be inconsistent in calling near a preposition, in the phrase, "So near thy heart," and an adjective, in the phrase, "Being near their master." See his Quarto Dict. I have not placed them with the prepositions, for the following four reasons: (1.) Because they are sometimes compared; (2.) Because they sometimes have adverbs evidently relating to them; (3.) Because the preposition to or unto is sometimes expressed after them; and (4.) Because the words which usually stand for them in the learned languages, are clearly adjectives.[367] But like, when it expresses similarity of manner, and near and nigh, when they express proximity of degree, are adverbs.
OBS. 8.—The word worth is often followed by an objective, or a participle, which it appears to govern; as, "If your arguments produce no conviction, they are worth nothing to me."—Beattie. "To reign is worth ambition."—Milton. "This is life indeed, life worth preserving."—Addison. It is not easy to determine to what part of speech worth here belongs. Dr. Johnson calls it an adjective, but says nothing of the object after it, which some suppose to be governed by of understood. In this supposition, it is gratuitously assumed, that worth is equivalent to worthy, after which of should be expressed; as, "Whatsoever is worthy of their love, is worth their anger."—Denham. But as worth appears to have no certain characteristic of an adjective, some call it a noun, and suppose a double ellipsis; as, "'My knife is worth a shilling;' i. e. 'My knife is of the worth of a shilling.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 163. "'The book is worth that sum;' that is, 'The book is (the) worth (of) that sum;' 'It is worth while;' that is, 'It is (the) worth (of the) while.'"—Nixon's Parser, p. 54. This is still less satisfactory;[368] and as the whole appears to be mere guess-work, I see no good reason why worth is not a preposition, governing the noun or participle.[369] If an adverb precede worth, it may as well be referred to the foregoing verb, as when it occurs before any other preposition: as, "It is richly worth the money."—"It lies directly before your door." Or if we admit that an adverb sometimes relates to this word, the same thing may be as true of other prepositions; as, "And this is a lesson which, to the greatest part of mankind, is, I think, very well worth learning."—Blair's Rhet., p. 303. "He sees let down from the ceiling, exactly over his head, a glittering sword, hung by a single hair."—Murray's E. Reader, p. 33. See Exception 3d to Rule 21st.
OBS. 9.—Both Dr. Johnson and Horne Tooke, (who never agreed if they could help it,) unite in saying that worth, in the phrases, "Wo worth the man,"—"Wo worth the day," and the like, is from the imperative of the Saxon verb wyrthan or weorthan, to be; i. e., "Wo be [to] the man," or, "Wo betide the man," &c. And the latter affirms, that, as the preposition by is from the imperative of beon, to be, so with, (though admitted to be sometimes from withan, to join,) is often no other than this same imperative verb wyrth or worth: if so, the three words, by, with, and worth, were originally synonymous, and should now be referred at least to one and the same class. The dative case, or oblique object, which they governed as Saxon verbs, becomes their proper object, when taken as English prepositions; and in this also they appear to be alike. Worth, then, when it signifies value, is a common noun; but when it signifies equal in value to, it governs an objective, and has the usual characteristics of a preposition. Instances may perhaps be found in which worth is an adjective, meaning valuable or useful, as in the following lines:
"They glow'd, and grew more intimate with God,
More worth to men, more joyous to themselves."
—Young, N. ix, l. 988.
In one instance, the poet Campbell appears to have used the word worthless as a preposition:
"Eyes a mutual soul confessing,
Soon you'll make them grow
Dim, and worthless your possessing,
Not with age, but woe!"
OBS. 10.—After verbs of giving, paying, procuring, and some others, there is usually an ellipsis of to or for before the objective of the person; as, "Give [to] him water to drink."—"Buy [for] me a knife."—"Pay [to] them their wages." So in the exclamation, "Wo is me!" meaning, "Wo is to me!" This ellipsis occurs chiefly before the personal pronouns, and before such nouns as come between the verb and its direct object; as, "Whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth [to] God service."—John, xvi, 2. "Who brought [to] her masters much gain by soothsaying."—Acts, xvi, 16. "Because he gave not [to] God the glory."—Ib., xii, 23. "Give [to] me leave to allow [to] myself no respite from labour."—Spect., No. 454. "And the sons of Joseph, which were born [to] him in Egypt, were two souls."—Gen., xlvi, 27. This elliptical construction of a few objectives, is what remains to us of the ancient Saxon dative case. If the order of the words be changed, the preposition must be inserted; as, "Pray do my service to his majesty."—Shak. The doctrine inculcated by several of our grammarians, that, "Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives," (Wells, §215,) I have, under a preceding rule, discountenanced; preferring the supposition, which appears to have greater weight of authority, as well as stronger support from reason, that, in the instances cited in proof of such government, a preposition is, in fact, understood. Upon this question of ellipsis, depends, in all such instances, our manner of parsing one of the objective words.
OBS. 11.—In dates, as they are usually written, there is much abbreviation; and several nouns of place and time are set down in the objective case, without the prepositions which govern them: as, "New York, Wednesday, 20th October, 1830."—Journal of Literary Convention. That is, "At New York, on Wednesday, the 20th day of October, in the year 1830."
Note to Rule VII.
An objective noun of time or measure, if it qualifies a subsequent adjective, must not also be made an adjunct to a preceding noun; as, "To an infant of only two or three years old."—Dr. Wayland. Expunge of, or for old write of age. The following is right: "The vast army of the Canaanites, nine hundred chariots strong, covered the level plain of Esdraelon."—Milman's Jews, Vol. i, p. 159. See Obs. 6th above.
Improprieties for Correction.
False Syntax under Rule VII. under the Rule Itself.—Of the Objective in Form.
"But I do not remember who they were for."—Abbott's Teacher, p. 265.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronoun who is in the nominative case, and is made the object of the preposition for. But, according to Rule 7th, "A noun or a pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case." Therefore, who should be whom; thus, "But I do not remember whom they were for."]
"But if you can't help it, who do you complain of?"—Collier's Antoninus, p. 137. "Who was it from? and what was it about?"—Edgeworth's Frank, p. 72. "I have plenty of victuals, and, between you and I, something in a corner."—Day's Sandford and Merton. "The upper one, who I am now about to speak of."—Hunt's Byron, p. 311. "And to poor we, thine enmity's most capital."—Beauties of Shakspeare, p. 201. "Which thou dost confess, were fit for thee to use, as they to claim."—Ib., p. 196. "To beg of thee, it is my more dishonour, than thou of them."—Ib., p. 197. "There are still a few who, like thou and I, drink nothing but water."—Gil Blas, Vol. i, p. 104. "Thus, I shall fall; Thou shalt love thy neighbour; He shall be rewarded, express no resolution on the part of I, thou, he."—Lennie's E. Gram., p. 22; Bullions's, 32. "So saucy with the hand of she here—What's her name?"—Shak., Ant. and Cleop., Act iii, Sc. 11. "All debts are cleared between you and I."—Id., Merchant of Venice, Act iii, Sc. 2. "Her price is paid, and she is sold like thou."—Milman's Fall of Jerusalem. "Search through all the most flourishing era's of Greece."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 16. "The family of the Rudolph's had been long distinguished."—The Friend, Vol. v, p. 54. "It will do well enough for you and I."—Castle Rackrent, p. 120. "The public will soon discriminate between him who is the sycophant, and he who is the teacher."—Chazotte's Essay, p. 10. "We are still much at a loss who civil power belongs to."—Locke. "What do you call it? and who does it belong to?"—Collier's Cebes. "He had received no lessons from the Socrates's, the Plato's, and the Confucius's of the age."—Hatter's Letters. "I cannot tell who to compare them to."—Bunyan's P. P., p. 128. "I see there was some resemblance betwixt this good man and I."—Pilgrim's Progress, p. 298. "They by that means have brought themselves into the hands and house of I do not know who."—Ib., p. 196. "But at length she said there was a great deal of difference between Mr. Cotton and we."—Hutchinson's Mass., ii, 430. "So you must ride on horseback after we." [370]—MRS. GILPIN: Cowper, i, 275. "A separation must soon take place between our minister and I."—Werter, p. 109. "When she exclaimed on Hastings, you, and I."—Shakspeare. "To who? to thee? What art thou?"—Id. "That they should always bear the certain marks who they came from."—Butler's Analogy, p. 221.
"This life has joys for you and I,
And joys that riches ne'er could buy."—Burns.
Under the Note—Of Time or Measure.
"Such as almost every child of ten years old knows."—Town's Analysis, p. 4. "One winter's school of four months, will carry any industrious scholar, of ten or twelve years old, completely through this book."—Ib., p. 12. "A boy of six years old may be taught to speak as correctly, as Cicero did before the Roman Senate."—Webster's Essays, p. 27. "A lad of about twelve years old, who was taken captive by the Indians."—Ib., p. 235. "Of nothing else but that individual white figure of five inches long which is before him."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 288. "Where lies the fault, that boys of eight or ten years old, are with great difficulty made to understand any of its principles."—Guy's Gram., p. v. "Where language of three centuries old is employed."—Booth's Introd. to Dict., p. 21. "Let a gallows be made of fifty cubits high."—Esther, v. 14. "I say to this child of nine years old bring me that hat, he hastens and brings it me."—Osborn's Key, p. 3. "He laid a floor twelve feet long, and nine feet wide; that is, over the extent of twelve feet long, and of nine feet wide."—Merchants School Gram., p. 95. "The Goulah people are a tribe of about fifty thousand strong."—Examiner, No. 71. RULE VIII.—NOM. ABSOLUTE.
A Noun or a Pronoun is put absolute in the nominative, when its case depends on no other word: as, "He failing, who shall meet success?"—"Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live forever?"—Zech., i, 5. "Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?"—1 Cor., ix, 6. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"—Rom., ix, 20. "O rare we!"—Cowper. "Miserable they!"—Thomson.
"The hour conceal'd, and so remote the fear, Death still draws nearer, never seeming near."—Pope.
Observations on Rule VIII.
OBS. 1.—Many grammarians make an idle distinction between the nominative absolute and the nominative independent, as if these epithets were not synonymous; and, at the same time, they are miserably deficient in directions for disposing of the words so employed. Their two rules do not embrace more than one half of those frequent examples in which the case of the noun or pronoun depends on no other word. Of course, the remaining half cannot be parsed by any of the rules which they give. The lack of a comprehensive rule, like the one above, is a great and glaring defect in all the English grammars that the author has seen, except his own, and such as are indebted to him for such a rule. It is proper, however, that the different forms of expression which are embraced in this general rule, should be discriminated, one from an other, by the scholar: let him therefore, in parsing any nominative absolute, tell how it is put so; whether with a participle, by direct address, by pleonasm, or by exclamation. For, in discourse, a noun or a pronoun is put absolute in the nominative, after four modes, or under the following four circumstances: (of which Murray's "case absolute," or "nominative absolute," contains only the first:)
I. When, with a participle, it is used to express a cause, or a concomitant fact; as, "I say, this being so, the law being broken, justice takes place."—Law and Grace, p. 27. "Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea." &c.—Luke, iii, 1. "I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren."—Gen., xxiv, 27.
————-"While shame, thou looking on,
Shame to be overcome or overreach'd,
Would utmost vigor raise."—Milton, P. L., B. ix, 1, 312.
II. When, by direct address, it is put in the second person, and set off from the verb, by a comma or an exclamation point; as, "At length, Seged, reflect and be wise."—Dr. Johnson. "It may be, drunkard, swearer, liar, thief, thou dost not think of this."—Law and Grace, p. 27.
"This said, he form'd thee, Adam! thee, O man! Dust of the ground, and in thy nostrils breath'd The breath of life."—Milton's Paradise Lost, B. vii, l. 524.
III. When, by pleonasm, it is introduced abruptly for the sake of emphasis, and is not made the subject or the object of any verb; as, "He that hath, to him shall be given."—Mark, iv, 25. "He that is holy, let him be holy still."—Rev., xxii, 11. "Gad, a troop shall overcome him."—Gen., xlix, 19. "The north and the south, thou hast created them."—Psalms, lxxxix, 12. "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them."—1 Tim., vi, 2. "And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare."—Levit., xiii, 45. "They who serve me with adoration,—I am in them, and they [are] in me."—R. W. EMERSON: Liberator, No. 996.
————————————-"What may this mean,
That thou, dead corse, again in complete steel,
Revisitst thus the glimpses of the moon,
Making night hideous; and, we fools of nature,[371]
So horribly to shake our disposition
With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls?"—Shak. Hamlet.
IV. When, by mere exclamation, it is used without address, and without other words expressed or implied to give it construction; as, "And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exodus, xxxiv, 6. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"—Rom., xi, 33. "I should not like to see her limping back, Poor beast!"—Southey.
"Oh! deep enchanting prelude to repose,
The dawn of bliss, the twilight of our woes!"—Campbell.
OBS. 2.—The nominative put absolute with a participle, is often equivalent to a dependent clause commencing with when, while, if, since, or because. Thus, "I being a child," may be equal to, "When I was a child," or, "Because I was a child." Here, in lieu of the nominative, the Greeks used the genitive case, and the Latins, the ablative. Thus, the phrase, "[Greek: Kai hysteræsantos oinou]," "And the wine failing," is rendered by Montanus, "Et deficiente vino;" but by Beza, "Et cum defecisset vinum;" and in our Bible, "And when they wanted wine."—John, ii, 3. After a noun or a pronoun thus put absolute, the participle being is frequently understood, especially if an adjective or a like case come after the participle; as,
"They left their bones beneath unfriendly skies,
His worthless absolution [being] all the prize."
—Cowper, Vol. i, p. 84.
"Alike in ignorance, his reason [———] such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much."—Pope, on Man.
OBS. 3.—The case which is put absolute in addresses or invocations, is what in the Latin and Greek grammars is called the Vocative. Richard Johnson says, "The only use of the Vocative Case, is, to call upon a Person, or a thing put Personally, which we speak to, to give notice to what we direct our Speech; and this is therefore, properly speaking, the only Case absolute or independent which we may make use of without respect to any other Word."—Gram. Commentaries, p. 131. This remark, however, applies not justly to our language; for, with us, the vocative case, is unknown, or not distinguished from the nominative. In English, all nouns of the second person are either put absolute in the nominative, according to Rule 8th, or in apposition with their own pronouns placed before them, according to Rule 3d: as, "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders."—Acts, iv, 11. "How much rather ought you receivers to be considered as abandoned and execrable!"—Clarkson's Essay, p. 114.
"Peace! minion, peace! it boots not me to hear
The selfish counsel of you hangers-on."
—Brown's Inst., p. 189.
"Ye Sylphs and Sylphids, to your chief give ear;
Fays, Faries, Genii, Elves, and Dæmons, hear!"
—Pope, R. L., ii, 74.
OBS. 4.—The case of nouns used in exclamations, or in mottoes and abbreviated sayings, often depends, or may be conceived to depend, on something understood; and, when their construction can be satisfactorily explained on the principle of ellipsis, they are not put absolute, unless the ellipsis be that of the participle. The following examples may perhaps be resolved in this manner, though the expressions will lose much of their vivacity: "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!"—Shak. "And he said unto his father, My head! my head!"—2 Kings, iv, 19. "And Samson said, With the jaw-bone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass, have I slain a thousand men."—Judges, xv, 16. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."—Matt., v, 38. "Peace, be still."—Mark, iv, 39. "One God, world without end. Amen."—Com. Prayer.
"My fan, let others say, who laugh at toil; Fan! hood! glove! scarf! is her laconic style."—Young.
OBS. 5.—"Such Expressions as, Hand to Hand, Face to Face, Foot to Foot, are of the nature of Adverbs, and are of elliptical Construction: For the Meaning is, Hand OPPOSED to Hand, &c."—W. Ward's Gram., p. 100. This learned and ingenious author seems to suppose the former noun to be here put absolute with a participle understood; and this is probably the best way of explaining the construction both of that word and of the preposition that follows it. So Samson's phrase, "heaps upon heaps," may mean, "heaps being piled upon heaps;" and Scott's, "man to man, and steel to steel," may be interpreted, "man being opposed to man, and steel being opposed to steel:"
"Now, man to man, and steel to steel,
A chieftain's vengeance thou shalt feel."—Lady of the Lake.
OBS. 6.—Cobbett, after his own hasty and dogmatical manner, rejects the whole theory of nominatives absolute, and teaches his "soldiers, sailors, apprentices, and ploughboys," that, "The supposition, that there can be a noun, or pronoun, which has reference to no verb, and no preposition, is certainly a mistake."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 201. To sustain his position, he lays violent hands upon the plain truth, and even trips himself up in the act. Thus: "For want of a little thought, as to the matter immediately before us, some grammarians have found out 'an absolute case,' as they call it; and Mr. Lindley Murray gives an instance of it in these words: 'Shame being lost, all virtue is lost.' The full meaning of this sentence is this: 'It being, or the state of things being such, that shame is lost, all virtue is lost.'"—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 191. Again: "There must, you will bear in mind, always be a verb expressed or understood. One would think, that this was not the case in [some instances: as,] 'Sir, I beg you to give me a bit of bread.' The sentence which follows the Sir, is complete; but the Sir appears to stand wholly without connexion. However, the full meaning is this: 'I beg you, who are a Sir, to give me a bit of bread.' Now, if you take time to reflect a little on this matter, you will never be puzzled for a moment by those detached words, to suit which grammarians have invented vocative cases and cases absolute, and a great many other appellations, with which they puzzle themselves, and confuse and bewilder and torment those who read their books."—Ib., Let. xix, ¶¶ 225 and 226. All this is just like Cobbett. But, let his admirers reflect on the matter as long as they please, the two independent nominatives it and state, in the text, "It being, or the state of things being such," will forever stand a glaring confutation both of his doctrine and of his censure: "the case absolute" is there still! He has, in fact, only converted the single example into a double one!
OBS. 7.—The Irish philologer, J. W. Wright, is even more confident than Cobbett, in denouncing "the case absolute;" and more severe in his reprehension of "Grammarians in general, and Lowth and Murray in particular," for entertaining the idea of such a case. "Surprise must cease," says he, "on an acquaintance with the fact, that persons who imbibe such fantastical doctrine should be destitute of sterling information on the subject of English grammar.—The English language is a stranger to this case. We speak thus, with confidence, conscious of the justness of our opinion:—an opinion, not precipitately formed, but one which is the result of mature and deliberate inquiry. 'Shame being lost, all virtue is lost:' The meaning of this is,—'When shame is being lost, all virtue is lost.' Here, the words is being lost form the true present tense of the passive voice; in which voice, all verbs, thus expressed, are unsuspectedly situated: thus, agreeing with the noun shame, as the nominative of the first member of the sentence."—Wright's Philosophical Gram., p. 192. With all his deliberation, this gentleman has committed one oversight here, which, as it goes to contradict his scheme of the passive verb, some of his sixty venerable commenders ought to have pointed out to him. My old friend, the "Professor of Elocution in Columbia College," who finds by this work of "superior excellence," that "the nature of the verb, the most difficult part of grammar, has been, at length, satisfactorily explained," ought by no means, after his "very attentive examination" of the book, to have left this service to me. In the clause, "all virtue is lost," the passive verb "is lost" has the form which Murray gave it—the form which, till within a year or two, all men supposed to be the only right one; but, according to this new philosophy of the language, all men have been as much in error in this matter, as in their notion of the nominative absolute. If Wright's theory of the verb is correct, the only just form of the foregoing expression is, "all virtue is being lost." If this central position is untenable, his management of the nominative absolute falls of course. To me, the inserting of the word being into all our passive verbs, seems the most monstrous absurdity ever broached in the name of grammar. The threescore certifiers to the accuracy of that theory, have, I trow, only recorded themselves as so many ignoramuses; for there are more than threescore myriads of better judgements against them.
Improprieties for Correction.
False Syntax under Rule VIII.
Nouns or Pronouns Put Absolute.
"Him having ended his discourse, the assembly dispersed."—Brown's Inst., p. 190.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronoun him, whose case depends on no other word, is in the objective case. But, according to Rule 8th, "A noun or a pronoun is put absolute in the nominative, when its case depends on no other word." Therefore, him should be he; thus, "He having ended his discourse, the assembly dispersed."]
"Me being young, they deceived me."—Inst. E. Gram., p. 190. "Them refusing to comply, I withdrew."—Ib. "Thee being present, he would not tell what he knew."—Ib. "The child is lost; and me, whither shall I go?"—Ib. "Oh! happy us, surrounded with so many blessings."—Murray's Key, p. 187; Merchant's, 197; Smith's New Gram., 96; Farnum's, 63. "'Thee, too! Brutus, my son!' cried Cæsar, overcome."—Brown's Inst., p. 190. "Thee! Maria! and so late! and who is thy companion?"—New-York Mirror, Vol. x, p. 353. "How swiftly our time passes away! and ah! us, how little concerned to improve it!"—Comly's Gram., Key, p. 192.
"There all thy gifts and graces we display,
Thee, only thee, directing all our way."