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

[419] The perfect contrast between from and to, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this to is the common preposition to. For example, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth."—Zech., vi, 5. Now if this were rendered "which go forth to stand," &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations. Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, "going forth to stand;" and the Latin, "which go forth, that they may stand;" while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,—"which go forth from the place where they stood."

[420] Cannot, with a verb of avoiding, or with the negative but, is equivalent to must. Such examples may therefore be varied thus: "I cannot but mention:" i.e., "I must mention."—"I cannot help exhorting him to assume courage."—Knox. That is, "I cannot but exhort him."

[421] See the same thing in Kirkham's Gram. p. 189; in Ingersoll's, p. 200; in Smith's New Grammar, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work. Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, "Participles frequently govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his majesty's dying without issue, &c.; Upon God's having ended all his works, &c.; I remember its being reckoned a great exploit; At my coming in he said, &c."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 181. None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy. Better: "In case his Majesty die without issue."—"God having ended all his works."—"I remember it was reckoned a great exploit."—"At my entrance, he said," &c.

[422] We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken substantively, "it ought not to govern another word;" and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an adverb relating to it. But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their "participial nouns" to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects. For example: Because one may say, "To read superficially, is useless," Barnard supposes it right to say, "Reading superficially is useless." "But the participle," says he, "will also take the adjective; as, 'Superficial reading is useless.'"—Analytic Gram., p. 212. In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected. Again, this author says: "We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a noun. What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of a man's accomplishing a task so stupendous.' The entire clause following man's, is taken as a noun. 'Of a man's success in a task so stupendous.' would present no difficulty. A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, thus often stands for a noun. 'My going will depend on my father's giving his consent,' or 'on my father's consenting.' A participle thus used as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN."—Ib., p. 131. I dislike this doctrine also. In the first example, man may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: "There has been no instance of a man accomplishing a task so stupendous." It is also proper to say. "My going will depend on my father's consenting," or, "on my father's consent." But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive. If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert of: thus, "There has been no instance of a man's accomplishing of a task so stupendous." "My going will depend on my father's giving of his consent."—"My brother's acquiring [of] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels."—Barnard's Gram., p. 227. If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, "A superficial reading books is useless?" Again, Barnard approves of the question, "What do you think of my horse's running to-day?" and adds, "Between this form of expression and the following, 'What do you think of my horse running to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. The difference of meaning certainly exists; but it would seem more judicious to treat the latter as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of me going to Niagara?' We should say my going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, therefore, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think of the propriety of my going to Niagara?"—Analytic Gram., p. 227. The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle.

[423] The following is an example, but it is not very intelligible, nor would it be at all amended, if the pronoun were put in the possessive case: "I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of them being spared even one lash of the cart-whip."—REV. DR. THOMPSON: Garrison, on Colonization, p. 80. And this is an other, in which the possessive pronoun would not be better: "But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let them do so; not an abolitionist will turn out to stop them going back."—Antislavery Reporter, Vol. IV, p. 223. Yet it might be more accurate to say—"to stop them from going back." In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with as, where some would be apt to adopt the possessive: "It gives us an idea of him, as being the only person to whom it can be applied."—Priestley's Gram., p. 151. Is not this better English than to say, "of his being the only person?" The following is from the pen of a good scholar: "This made me remember the discourse we had together, at my house, about me drawing constitutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand."—WILLIAM PENN: Letter to Algernon Sidney, Oct. 13th, 1681. Here, if me is objectionable, my without of would be no less so. It might be better grammar to say, "about my drawing of constitutions."

[424] Sometimes the passive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is simpler; as, "Those portions of the grammar are worth the trouble of being committed to memory."—Dr. Barrow's Essays, p. 109. Better, perhaps:—"worth the trouble of committing to memory:" or,—"worth the trouble committing them to memory." Again: "What is worth being uttered at all, is worth being spoken in a proper manner."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 68. Better, perhaps: "What is worth uttering at all, is worth uttering in a proper manner."—G. Brown.

[425] "RULE.—When the participle expresses something of which the noun following is the DOER, it should have the article and preposition; as, 'It was said in the hearing of the witness.' When it expresses something of which the noun following is not the doer, but the OBJECT, both should be omitted; as, 'The court spent some time in hearing the witness.'"—BULLIONS, Prin. of E. Gram., p. 108; Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 181.

[426] This doctrine is far from being true. See Obs. 12th, in this series, above.—G. B.

[427] "Dr. Webster considers the use of then and above as ADNOUNS, [i. e., adjectives,] to be 'well authorized and very convenient;' as, the then ministry; the above remarks."—Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 108. Dr. Webster's remark is in the following words: "Then and above are often used as ATTRIBUTES: [i. e., adjectives; as,] the then ministry; the above remarks; nor would I prescribe this use. It is well authorized and very convenient."—Philos. Gram., p. 245; Improved Gram., p. 176. Of this use of then, Dr. Crombie has expressed a very different opinion: "Here then," says he, "the adverb equivalent to at that time, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with ministry. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided."—On Etym. and Synt., p. 405.

[428] W. Allen supposes, "An adverb sometimes qualifies a whole sentence: as, Unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."—Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 173. But this example may be resolved thus: "It happens unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, that no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."

[429] This assertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth. I am confident that the latter construction occurs, even among reputable authors, ten times as often as the former can be found in any English books.—G. BROWN.

[430] Should not the Doctor have said, "are there more," since "more than one" must needs be plural? See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[431] This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable. We have also a late American grammarian who gives a similar interpretation: "'Though never so justly deserving of it.' Comber. Never is here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly as was never. Though well authorized, it is disapproved by most grammarians of the present day; and the word ever is used instead of never."—Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 107. The text here cited is not necessarily bad English as it stands; but, if the commenter has not mistaken its meaning, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, "Though everso justly deserving of it."—"So justly as was never," is a positive degree that is not imaginable; and what is this but an absurdity?

[432] Since this remark was written, I have read an other grammar, (that of the "Rev. Charles Adams,") in which the author sets down among "the more frequent improprieties committed, in conversation, 'Ary one' for either, and 'nary one' for neither."—Adams's System of Gram., p. 116. Eli Gilbert too betrays the same ignorance. Among his "Improper Pronunciations" he puts down "Nary" and "Ary" and for "Corrections" of them, gives "neither" and "either."—Gilbert's Catechetical Gram., p. 128. But these latter terms, either and neither, are applicable only to one of two things, and cannot be used where many are spoken of; as,

   "Stealing her soul with many vows of faith,
    And ne'er a true one."—Shakspeare.

What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, "And neither a true one?" So some men both write and interpret their mother tongue erroneously through ignorance. But these authors condemn the errors which they here falsely suppose to be common. What is yet more strange, no less a critic than Prof. William C. Fowler, has lately exhibited, without disapprobation, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localisms, (often descending to slang,) which, he says, are mentioned by "Mr. Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [Dictionary] of Americanisms." The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: "ARY = either."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, N. Y., 1850, p. 92.

[433] The conjunction that, at the head of a sentence or clause, enables us to assume the whole preposition as one thing; as, "All arguments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these three things: that something is true; that it is morally right or fit; or that it is profitable and good."—Blair's Rhet., p. 318. Here each that may be parsed as connecting its own clause to the first clause in the sentence; or, to the word things with which the three clauses are in a sort of apposition. If we conceive it to have no such connecting power, we must make this too an exception.

[434] "Note. Then and than are distinct Particles, but use hath made the using of then for than after a Comparative Degree at least passable. See Butler's Eng. Gram. Index."—Walker's Eng. Particles, Tenth Ed., 1691, p. 333.

[435] "When the relative who follows the preposition than, it must be used as in the accusative case."—Bucke's Gram., p. 93. Dr. Priestley seems to have imagined the word than to be always a preposition; for he contends against the common doctrine and practice respecting the case after it: "It is, likewise, said, that the nominative case ought to follow the preposition than; because