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

done only by condemning the current usage of nearly all good authors, as well as the common opinion of most grammarians; and the greater is the wonder, because they seem to do it innocently, or to teach it childishly, as not knowing that they cannot justify both sides, when the question lies between opposite and contradictory principles. By this sort of simplicity, which approves of errors, if much practised, and of opposites, or essential contraries, when authorities may be found for them, no work, perhaps, is more strikingly characterized, than the popular School Grammar of W. H. Wells. This author says, "The use of but as a preposition is approved by J. E. Worcester, John Walker, R. C. Smith, Picket, Hiley, Angus, Lynde, Hull, Powers, Spear, Farnum, Fowle, Goldsbury, Perley, Cobb, Badgley, Cooper, Jones, Davis, Beall, Hendrick, Hazen, and Goodenow."—School Gram., 1850, p. 178. But what if all these authors do prefer, "but him," and "save him," where ten times as many would say, "but he," "save he?" Is it therefore difficult to determine which party is right? Or is it proper for a grammarian to name sundry authorities on both sides, excite doubt in the mind of his reader, and leave the matter unsettled? "The use of but as a preposition," he also states, "is discountenanced by G. Brown, Sanborn, Murray, S. Oliver, and several other grammarians. (See also an able article in the Mass. Common School Journal, Vol. ii, p. 19.)"—School Gram., p. 178.

OBS. 16.—Wells passes no censure on the use of nominatives after but and save; does not intimate which case is fittest to follow these words; gives no false syntax under his rule for the regimen of prepositions; but inserts there the following brief remarks and examples:

"REM. 3.—The word save is frequently used to perform the office of a preposition; as, 'And all desisted, all save him alone.'—Wordsworth."

"REM. 4.—But is sometimes employed as a preposition, in the sense of except; as, 'The boy stood on the burning deck, Whence all but him had fled.'—Hemans."—Ib., p. 167.

Now, "BUT," says Worcester, as well as Tooke and others, was "originally bot, contracted from be out;" and, if this notion of its etymology is just, it must certainly be followed by the nominative case, rather than by the objective; for the imperative be or be out governs no case, admits no additional term but a nominative—an obvious and important fact, quite overlooked by those who call but a preposition. According to Allen H. Weld, but and save "are commonly considered prepositions," but "are more commonly termed conjunctions!" This author repeats Wells's examples of "save him," and "but him," as being right; and mixes them with opposite examples of "save he," "but he," "save I," which he thinks to be more right!—Weld's Gram., p. 187.

OBS. 17.—Professor Fowler, too, an other author remarkable for a facility of embracing incompatibles, contraries, or dubieties, not only condemns as "false syntax" the use of save for an exceptive conjunction. (§587. ¶28,) but cites approvingly from Latham the following very strange absurdity: "One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a Conjunction or [a] Preposition, as the case may be: [as] All fled but John."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, § 555. This is equivalent to saying, that "one and the same sentence" may be two different sentences; may, without error, be understood in two different senses; may be rightly taken, resolved, and parsed in two different ways! Nay, it is equivalent to a denial of the old logical position, that "It is impossible for a thing to be and not be at the same time;" for it supposes "but," in the instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and not a conjunction, both a preposition and not a preposition, "as the case may be!" It is true, that "one and the same word" may sometimes be differently parsed by different grammarians, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the expression itself is equivocal. "All fled but John," is thought to mean equally well, "All fled but he," and, "All fled but him;" while these latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore erroneous, is to be corrected, rather than parsed in any way. But I deny both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics profess to find among the said phrases. "John fled not, but all the rest fled," is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form, "All fled but him," it is told ungrammatically; in the other two, correctly.

OBS. 18.—In Latin, cum with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed to have, the force of the conjunction et with a nominative; as, "Dux cum aliquot principibus capiuntur."—LIVY: W. Allen's Gram., p. 131. In imitation of this construction, some English writers have substituted with for and, and varied the verb accordingly; as, "A long course of time, with a variety of accidents and circumstances, are requisite to produce those revolutions."—HUME: Allen's Gram., p. 131; Ware's, 12; Priestley's, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his proof text under the following observation: "It is not necessary that the two subjects of an affirmation should stand in the very same construction, to require the verb to be in the plural number. If one of them be made to depend upon the other by a connecting particle, it may, in some cases, have the same force, as if it were independent of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 186. Lindley Murray, on the contrary, condemns this doctrine, and after citing the same example with others, says: "It is however, proper to observe that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by the just principles of construction."— Octavo Gram., p. 150. He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it. All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it. And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek. They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought. Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus assumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty.

OBS. 19.—Dr. Adam simply remarks, "The plural is sometimes used after the preposition cum put for et; as, Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt. Virg."—Latin and English Gram., p. 207; Gould's Adam's Latin Gram., p. 204; W. Allen's English Gram., 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better. Alexander has it in a worse form still: "Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt."—Latin Gram., p. 47. Virgil's words are, "Cana FIDES, et VESTA, Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt."—Æneid, B. i, l. 296. Nor is cum here "put for et," unless we suppose also an antiptosis of Remo fratre for Remus frater; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they correct in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: "The palace of Pizarro, together with the houses of several of his adherents, were pillaged by the soldiers."— Hist. of Amer., Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, "were" ought to be was. Secondly, if were be retained, "together with" ought to be changed to and, or and also. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, "The palace of Pizarro, as well as the houses of several of his adherents, was pillaged by the soldiers." Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: "And there appeared unto them Elias, with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus." If this text meant that the three disciples were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him;" and our version in Luke is, "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias."—Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the pronoun they, which our translators inserted, was meant for "Elias with Moses;" but the Greek verb for "appeared," as used by Mark, is singular, and agrees only with Elias. "[Greek: Kai ophthæ autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai hæsan syllalountes to Iæsoy.]"—"Et apparuit illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu."—Montanus. "Et visus est eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu."—Beza. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: "Et iis virent paroître Moyse et Elie, qui s'entretenoient avec Jésus." That is, "And there appeared to them Moses and Elias, who were talking with Jesus." Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, "And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and these two were talking with Jesus." There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, "The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, who with his brethren and sons were twelve."—1 Chron., xxv, 9. Better: "and he, his brethren, and his sons, were twelve."

OBS. 20.—Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting with for and; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such "a sort of addition made to it." The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable example, "Sidmouth, with Oliver the spye, have brought Brandreth to the block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The Tyrant, with the Spy, have brought Peter to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, has or have. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use and, and not with? After some further illustrations, he says: "When with means along with, together with, in Company with, and the like, it is nearly the same as and; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with his brothers, are able to do much.' Not, 'is able to do much.' If the pronoun be used instead of brothers, it will be in the objective case: 'He, with them, are able to do much.' But this is no impediment to the including of the noun (represented by them) in the nominative." I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist! The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, do much;' and not 'does much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it does nothing. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain:"—1 Tim., vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its meaning? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?

OBS. 21.—There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a real one,) in which there is either