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

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