The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

particular form or modification assumed; as, possessives, objectives, infinitives, gerundives. These are the only things in English, that can properly be said to be subject to government; and these are always so, in their own names; unless we except such infinitives as stand in the place of nominatives. Gerundives are participles governed by prepositions; but, there being little or no occasion to distinguish these from other participles, we seldom use this name. The Latin Gerund differs from a participle, and the English Gerundive differs from a participial noun. The participial noun may be the subject or the object of a verb, or may govern the possessive case before it, like any other noun; but the true English gerundive, being essentially a participle, and governing an object after it, like any other participle, is itself governed only by a preposition. At least, this is its usual and allowed construction, and no other is acknowledged to be indisputably right.

OBS. 19.—The simple Relations of words in English, (or those several uses of the parts of speech which we may refer to this head,) are the following nine: (1.) Of Articles to nouns, by Rule 1st; (2.) Of Nominatives to verbs, by Rule 2d; (3.) Of Nominatives absolute or independent, by Rule 8th; (4.) Of Adjectives to nouns or pronouns, by Rule 9th; (5.) Of Participles to nouns or pronouns, by Rule 20th; (6.) Of Adverbs to verbs, participles, &c., by Rule 21st; (7.) Of Conjunctions as connecting words, phrases, or sentences, by Rule 22nd; (8.) Of Prepositions as showing the relations of things, by Rule 23d; (9.) Of Interjections as being used independently, by Rule 24th.

OBS. 20.—The syntactical Agreements in English, though actually much fewer than those which occur in Latin, Greek, or French, may easily be so reckoned as to amount to double, or even triple, the number usually spoken of by the old grammarians. The twenty-four rules above, embrace the following ten heads, which may not improperly be taken for so many distinct concords: (1.) Of a Noun or Pronoun in direct apposition with another, by Rule 3d; (2.) Of a Noun or Pronoun after a verb or participle not transitive, by Rule 6th; (3.) Of a Pronoun with its antecedent, by Rule 10th; (4.) Of a Pronoun with a collective noun, by Rule 11th; (5.) Of a Pronoun with joint antecedents, by Rule 12th; (6.) Of a Pronoun with disjunct antecedents, by Rule 13th; (7.) Of a Verb with its nominative, by Rule 14th; (8.) Of a Verb with a collective noun, by Rule 15th; (9.) Of a Verb with joint nominatives, by Rule 16th; (10.) Of a Verb with disjunct nominatives, by Rule 17th. To these may be added two other special concords, less common and less important, which will be explained in notes under the rules: (11.) Of one Verb with an other, in mood, tense, and form, when two are connected so as to agree with the same nominative; (12.) Of Adjectives that imply unity or plurality, with their nouns, in number.

OBS. 21.—Again, by a different mode of reckoning them, the concords or the general principles of agreement, in our language, may be made to be only three or four; and some of these much less general, than they are in other languages: (1.) Words in apposition agree in case, according to Rule 3d; of which principle, Rule 6th may be considered a modification. (2.) Pronouns agree, with their nouns, in person, number, and gender, according to Rule 10th; of which principle, Rules 11th, 12th, and 13th, may be reckoned modifications. (3.) Verbs agree with their nominatives, in person and number, according to Rule 14th; of which principle Rules 15th, 16th, and 17th, and the occasional agreement of one verb with an other, may be esteemed mere modifications. (4.) Some adjectives agree with their nouns in number. These make up the twelve concords above enumerated.

OBS. 22.—The rules of Government in the best Latin grammars are about sixty; and these are usually distributed (though not very properly) under three heads; "1. Of Nouns. 2. Of Verbs. 3. Of Words indeclinable."— Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 170. "Regimen est triplex: 1. Nominum. 2. Verborum. 3. Vocum indeclinabilium."—Ruddiman's Gram., p. 138. This division of the subject brings all the titles of the rules wrong. For example, if the rule be, "Active verbs govern the accusative case," this is not properly "the government of verbs" but rather the government of the accusative by verbs. At least, such titles are equivocal, and likely to mislead the learner. The governments in English are only seven, and these are expressed, perhaps with sufficient distinctness, in six of the foregoing rules: (1.) Of Possessives by nouns, in Rule 4th; (2.) Of Objectives by verbs, in Rule 5th; (3.) Of Objectives by participles, in Rule 5th; (4.) Of Objectives by prepositions, in Rule 7th; (5.) Of Infinitives by the preposition to, in Rule 18th; (6.) Of Infinitives by the verbs bid, dare, &c., in Rule 19th; (7.) Of Participles by prepositions, in Rule 20th.

OBS. 23.—The Arrangement of words, (which will be sufficiently treated of in the observations hereafter to be made on the several rules of construction,) is an important part of syntax, in which not only the beauty but the propriety of language is intimately concerned, and to which particular attention should therefore be paid in composition. But it is to be remembered, that the mere collocation of words in a sentence never affects the method of parsing them: on the contrary, the same words, however placed, are always to be parsed in precisely the same way, so long as they express precisely the same meaning. In order to show that we have parsed any part of an inverted or difficult sentence rightly, we are at liberty to declare the meaning by any arrangement which will make the construction more obvious, provided we retain both the sense and all the words unaltered; but to drop or alter any word, is to pervert the text under pretence of resolving it, and to make a mockery of parsing. Grammar rightly learned, enables one to understand both the sense and the construction of whatsoever is rightly written; and he who reads what he does not understand, reads to little purpose. With great indignity to the muses, several pretenders to grammar have foolishly taught, that, "In parsing poetry, in order to come at the meaning of the author, the learner will find it necessary to transpose his language."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 166. See also the books of Merchant, Wilcox, O. B. Peirce, Hull, Smith, Felton, and others, to the same effect. To what purpose can he transpose the words of a sentence, who does not first see what they mean, and how to explain or parse them as they stand?

OBS. 24.—Errors innumerable have been introduced into the common modes of parsing, through a false notion of what constitutes a simple sentence. Lowth, Adam, Murray, Gould, Smith, Ingersoll, Comly, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, Wells, and many others, say, "A simple sentence has in it but one subject, and one finite verb: as, 'Life is short.'"—L. Murray's Gram., p. 141. In accordance with this assertion, some assume, that, "Every nominative has its own verb expressed or understood;" and that, "Every verb (except in the infinitive mood and participle) has its own nominative expressed or understood."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 87. The adopters of these dogmas, of course think it right to supply a nominative whenever they do not find a separate one expressed for every finite verb, and a verb whenever they do not find a separate one expressed for every nominative. This mode of interpretation not only precludes the agreement of a verb with two or more nominatives, so as to render nugatory two of the most important rules of these very gentlemen's syntax; but, what is worse, it perverts many a plain, simple, and perfect sentence, to a form which its author did not choose, and a meaning which he never intended. Suppose, for example, the text to be, "A good constitution and good laws make good subjects."—Webster's Essays, p. 152. Does not the verb make agree with constitution and laws, taken conjointly? and is it not a perversion of the sentence to interpret it otherwise? Away then with all this needless subaudition! But while we thus deny that there can be a true ellipsis of what is not necessary to the construction, it is not to be denied that there are true ellipses, and in some men's style very many. The assumption of O. B. Peirce, that no correct sentence is elliptical, and his impracticable project of a grammar founded on this principle, are among the grossest of possible absurdities.

OBS. 25.—Dr. Wilson says, "There may be several subjects to the same verb, several verbs to the same subject, or several objects to the same verb, and the sentence be simple. But when the sentence remains simple, the same verb must be differently affected by its several adjuncts, or the sense liable to be altered by a separation. If the verb or the subject be affected in the same manner, or the sentence is resolvable into more, it is compounded. Thus, 'Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, mixed in due proportion, produce white,' is a simple sentence, for the subject is indivisible. But, 'Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, are refrangible rays of light,' is a compound sentence, and may be separated into seven."—Essay on Gram., p. 186. The propriety of the distinction here made, is at least questionable; and I incline to consider the second example a simple sentence, as well as the first; because what the writer calls a separation into seven, involves a change of are to is, and of rays to ray, as well as a sevenfold repetition of this altered predicate, "is a refrangible ray of light." But the parser, in interpreting the words of others, and expounding the construction of what is written, has no right to alter anything in this manner. Nor do I admit that he has a right to insert or repeat anything needlessly; for the nature of a sentence, or the syntax of some of its words, may often be altered without change of the sense, or of any word for an other: as, "'A wall seven feet high;' that is, 'A wall which is seven feet high.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 109. "'He spoke and acted prudently;' that is, 'He spoke prudently, and he acted prudently.'"—Ibid. '"He spoke and acted wisely;' that is, 'He spoke wisely, and he acted wisely.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 219; Alger's, 70: R. C. Smith's, 183; Weld's, 192; and others. By this notion of ellipsis, the connexion or joint relation of words is destroyed.

OBS. 26.—Dr. Adam, who thought the division of sentences into simple and compound, of sufficient importance to be made the basis of a general division of syntax into two parts, has defined a simple sentence to be, "that which has but one nominative, and one finite verb;" and a compound sentence, "that which has more than one nominative, or one finite verb." And of the latter he gives the following erroneous and self-contradictory account: "A compound sentence is made up of two or more simple sentences or phrases, and is commonly called a Period. The parts of which a compound sentence consists, are called Members or Clauses. In every compound sentence there are either several subjects and one attribute, or several attributes and one subject, or both several subjects and several attributes; that is, there are either several nominatives applied to the same verb, or several verbs applied to the same nominative, or both. Every verb marks a judgment or attribute, and every attribute must have a subject. There must, therefore, be in every sentence or period, as many propositions as there are verbs of a finite mode. Sentences are compounded by means of relatives and conjunctions; as, Happy is the man who loveth religion, and practiseth virtue."—Adam's Gram., p. 202; Gould's, 199; and others.

OBS. 27.—Now if every compound sentence consists of such parts, members, or clauses, as are in themselves sentences, either simple or compound, either elliptical or complete; it is plain, in the first place, that the term "phrases" is misapplied above, because a phrase is properly only a part of some simple sentence. And if "a simple sentence is that which has but one nominative and one finite verb," and "a compound sentence is made up of two or more simple sentences," it follows, since "all sentences are either simple or compound," that, in no sentence, can there be "either several nominatives applied to the same verb, or several verbs applied to the same nominative." What, therefore, this author regarded as the characteristic of all compound sentences, is, according to his own previous positions, utterly impossible to any sentence. Nor is it less repugnant to his subsequent doctrine, that, "Sentences are compounded by means of relatives and conjunctions;" for, according to his notion, "A conjunction is an indeclinable word,