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

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