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

OBS. 35.—Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction of signification; as, if "the horse's running to-day," must needs imply a past action, though, (they suppose,) "the pupil's composing frequently," or, "the horse running to-day," signifies a future one. This distinction of time is altogether imaginary; and the notion, that to prefer the possessive case before participles, is merely to withstand an error of "some late writers," is altogether false. The instructions above cited, therefore, determine nothing rightly, except the inaccuracy of one very uncommon form of expression. For, according to our best grammarians, the simple mode of correction there adopted will scarcely be found applicable to any other text. It will not be right where the participle happens to be transitive, or even where it is qualified by an adverb. From their subsequent examples, it is plain that these gentlemen think otherwise; but still, who can understand what they mean by "the common mode of expression?" What, for instance, would they substitute for the following very inaccurate expression from the critical belles-lettres of Dr. Blair? "A mother accusing her son, and accusing him of such actions, as having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."—Blair's Lectures, p. 274. Would they say. "A mother's accusing her son, &c., were circumstances," &c.? Is this their "common mode of expression?" and if it is, do they not make "common" what is no better English than the Doctor's? If, to accuse a son, and to accuse him greatly, can be considered different circumstances of the same prosecution, the sentence may be corrected thus: "A mother's accusing of her son, and her charging of him with such actions, as those of having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."

OBS. 36.—On several occasions, as in the tenth and twelfth observations on Rule 4th, and in certain parts of the present series, some notice has been taken of the equivalence or difference of meaning, real or supposed, between the construction of the possessive, and that of an other case, before the participle; or between the participial and the substantive use of words in ing. Dr. Priestley, to whom, as well as to Dr. Lowth, most of our grammarians are indebted for some of their doctrines respecting this sort of derivatives, pretends to distinguish them, both as constituting different parts of speech, and as conveying different meanings. In one place, he says, "When a word ending in ing is preceded by an article, it seems to be used as a noun; and therefore ought not to govern an other word, without the intervention of a preposition."—Priestley's Gram., p. 157. And in an other: "Many nouns are derived from verbs, and end in ing, like participles of the present tense. The difference between these nouns and participles is often overlooked, and the accurate distinction of the two senses not attended to. If I say, What think you of my horse's running to-day, I use the NOUN running, and suppose the horse to have actually run; for it is the same thing as if I had said, What think you of the running of my horse. But if I say, What think you of my horse running to-day, I use the PARTICIPLE, and I mean to ask, whether it be proper that my horse should run or not: which, therefore, supposes that he had not then run."—Ib., p. 122. Whatever our other critics say about the horse running or the horse's running, they have in general borrowed from Priestley, with whom the remark originated, as it here stands. It appears that Crombie, Murray, Maunder, Lennie, Bullions, Ingersoll, Barnard, Hiley, and others, approve the doctrine thus taught, or at least some part of it; though some of them, if not all, thereby contradict themselves.

ODS. 37.—By the two examples here contrasted, Priestley designed to establish a distinction, not for these texts only, but for all similar expressions—a distinction both of the noun from the participle, and of the different senses which he supposed these two constructions to exhibit. In all this, there is a complete failure. Yet with what remarkable ductility and implicitness do other professed critics take for granted what this superficial philologer so hastily prescribes! By acknowledging with reference to such an application of them, that the two constructions above are both good English, our grammarians do but the more puzzle their disciples respecting the choice between them; just as Priestley himself was puzzled, when he said, "So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned, a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Gram., p. 70. Murray and others omit this "perhaps," and while they allow both forms to be good, decidedly prefer the latter; but neither Priestley, nor any of the rest, ever pretended to discern in these a difference of signification, or even of parts of speech. For my part, in stead of approving either of these readings about the "great exploit," I have rejected both, for reasons which have already been given; and now as to the first two forms of the horserace question, so far as they may strictly be taken for models, I cannot but condemn them also, and for the same reasons: to which reasons may be joined the additional one, that neither expression is well adapted to the sense which the author himself gives to it in his interpretation. If the Doctor designed to ask, "Do you think my horse ran well to-day?" or, "Do you think it proper for my horse to run to-day?" he ought to have used one or the other of these unequivocal and unobjectionable expressions. There is in fact between the others, no such difference of meaning as he imagines; nor does he well distinguish "the NOUN running" from the PARTICIPLE runnning; because he apparently allows the word, in both instances, to be qualified by the adverb to-day.[422]

OBS. 38.—It is clear, that the participle in ing partakes sometimes the nature of its verb and an adjective; so that it relates to a noun, like an adjective, and yet implies time, and, if transitive, governs an object, like a verb: as, "Horses running a race." Hence, by dropping what here distinguishes it as a participle, the word may become an adjective, and stand before its noun; as, "A running brook." So, too, this participle sometimes partakes the nature of its verb and a noun; so that it may be governed by a preposition, like a noun, though in itself it has no cases or numbers, but is indeclinable: as "In running a race." Hence, again, by dropping what distinguishes it as a participle, it may become a noun; as, "Running is a safer sport than wrestling." Now, if to a participle we prefix something which makes it an adjective, we also take away its regimen, by inserting a preposition; as, "A doctrine _un_deserving of praise,"—"A man _un_compromising in his principles." So, if we put before it an article, an adjective, or a possessive, and thus give to the participle a substantive character or relation, there is reason to think, that we ought, in like manner, to take away its regimen, and its adverb too, if it have any, and be careful also to distinguish this noun from the participial adjective; as, "The running of a race,"—"No racing of horses,"—"Your deserving of praise."—"A man's compromising of his principles." With respect to the articles, or any adjectives, it seems now to be generally conceded, that these are signs of substantives; and that, if added to participles, they must cause them to be taken, in all respects, substantively. But with respect to possessives before participles, the common practice of our writers very extensively indulges the mixed construction of which I have said so much, and concerning the propriety of which, the opinions of our grammarians are so various, so confused, and so self-contradictory.

OBS. 39.—Though the participle with a nominative or an objective before it, is not in general, equivalent to the verbal noun or the mixed participle with a possessive before it; and though the significations of the two phrases are often so widely different as to make it palpably absurd to put either for the other; yet the instances are not few in which it makes little or no difference to the sense, which of the two forms we prefer, and therefore, in these instances, I would certainly choose the more simple and regular construction; or, where a better than either can readily be found, reject both. It is also proper to have some regard to the structure of other languages, and to the analogy of General Grammar. If there be "some late writers" who are chargeable with "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," there are perhaps more who as idly affect what they suppose "consonant with the genius of our language." I allude to those who would prefer the possessive case in a text like the following: "Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?"'—1 Kings, i, 41. "Quid sibi vult clamor civitatis tumultuantis?"—Vulgate. "[Greek: Gis hæ phonæ tæs poleos æchousæs];"—Septuagint. Literally: "What [means] the clamour of the city resounding?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui est ainsi émue?"—French Bible. Literally: "What means this noise of the city which is so moved?" Better English: "What means this noise with which the city rings?" In the following example, there is a seeming imitation of the foregoing Latin or Greek construction; but it may well be doubted whether it would be any improvement to put the word "disciples" in the possessive case; nor is it easy to find a third form which would be better than these: "Their difficulties will not be increased by the intended disciples having ever resided in a Christian country."—West's Letters, p. 119.

OBS. 40.—It may be observed of these different relations between participles and other words, that nouns are much more apt to be put in the nominative or the objective case, than are pronouns. For example: "There is no more of moral principle in the way of abolitionists nominating their own candidates, than in that of their voting for those nominated by others."—GERRIT SMITH: Liberator, Vol. X, p. 17. Indeed, a pronoun of the nominative or the objective case is hardly ever used in such a relation, unless it be so obviously the leading word in sense, as to preclude all question about the construction.[423] And this fact seems to make it the more doubtful, whether it be proper to use nouns in that manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered the leading word in sense, we are at least under no necessity of subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought desirable to vary the foregoing example, it may easily be done, thus: "There is no more of moral principle to prevent abolitionists from nominating their own candidates, than to prevent them from voting for those nominated by others." The following example is much like the preceding, but less justifiable: "We see comfort, security, strength, pleasure, wealth, and prosperity, all flowing from men combining together; and misery, weakness, and poverty, ensuing from their acting separately or in opposition to each other."—West's Letters, p. 133. Say rather,—"from men's combining-together," or, "from the just combination of men in society;" and,—"from their separate action, or their opposition to one an other." Take an other example: "If illorum be governed here of negotii, it must be in this order, gratia negotii illorum videndi; and this is, for the sake of their business being seen, and not, for the sake of them being seen."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 352. Here the learned critic, in disputing Perizonius's resolution of the phrase, "illorum videndi gratiâ" has written disputable English. But, had he affected the Latin idiom, a nearer imitation of it would have been,—"for the sake of their business's being seen, and not for the sake of their being seen." Or nearer still,—"for the sake of seeing of their business, and not, for the sake of seeing of them." An elegant writer would be apt to avoid all these forms, and say,—"for the sake of seeing their business;" and,—"for the sake of seeing them;" though the former phrase, being but a version of bad Latin, makes no