A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (cat reading book txt) 📕

Sixpence is twelve halfpennies.

He is all head and shoulders.

Vulnera totus erat.

Tu es deliciæ meæ.

Ἑκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,

Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.

CHAPTER XVII.

ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.

§ 480. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) objective, and (2.) modal.

It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb,—as he strikes me; he wounds the enemy.

It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.

The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may also be modal,—I strike the enemy with the sword = ferio hostem gladio.

The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,—I walk with the stick. When we say, I walk the horse, the word walk has changed its meaning, and signifies make to walk, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a transitive verb.

The modal construction may also be called the adverbial construction; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,—I fight with bravery = I fight bravely: he walks a king = he walks regally. The modal (or adverbial) construction, sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive, e.g., to sleep the sleep of the righteous. Here, nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object; which is not the case here. The sentence means, to sleep as the righteous sleep, or according to the sleep of the righteous.

CHAPTER XVIII.

ON THE PARTICIPLES.

§ 481. The present participle, or the participle in -ing, must be considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in -ing. Dying-day is, probably, no more a participle than morning-walk. In respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider that they are either participles or substantives.

1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive case—What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train? Here the word holding = the act of holding.—Quid est significatio elevationis pallæ de parte fœminæ.

2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun, preceding them—What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train? Here the word holding = in the act of holding, and answers to the Latin fœminæ elevantis.—Quid est significatio fœminæ elevantis pallam?

§ 482. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form τυπτόμενος, but with the form τετυμμένος. I am beaten is essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just like the Latin sum verberatus. Its Greek equivalent is not εἰμὶ τυπτόμενος = I am a man in the act of being beaten, but εἰμὶ τετυμμένος = I am a man who has been beaten. It is past in respect to the action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the action. This essentially past element in the so-called present expression, I am beaten, will be again referred to.

CHAPTER XIX.

ON THE MOODS.

§ 483. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule that when two verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood, means that one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun—I begin to move = I begin the act of moving. Verbs, as verbs, can only come together in the way of apposition—I irritate, I beat, I talk at him, I call him names, &c.

§ 484. The construction, however, of English infinitives is two fold. (1.) Objective. (2.) Gerundial.

When one verb is followed by another without the preposition to, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or from the form in -an.

Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others:

I may go, not   I may to go. I might go, — I might to go. I can move, — I can to move. I could move, — I could to move. I will speak, — I will to speak. I would speak,   — I would to speak. I shall wait, — I shall to wait. I should wait, — I should to wait. Let me go, — Let me to go. He let me go, — He let me to go. I do speak, — I do to speak. I did speak, — I did to speak. I dare go, — I dare to go. I durst go, — I durst to go.

This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions.

When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition to, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund, i.e., the form in -nne, i.e., the dative case—I begin to move. This is the case with the great majority of English verbs.

§ 485. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in English, be used in the second person—go thou on, get you gone, &c.: (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether.

CHAPTER XX.

ON THE TENSES.

§ 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not express a strictly present action. It rather expresses an habitual one. He speaks well = he is a good speaker. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says I am speaking.

It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power—I beat you ( = I will beat you) if you don't leave off.

§ 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect but the Greek aorist. I beat = ἔτυψα not τέτυφα. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary have + the past participle.

CHAPTER XXI.

SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.

§ 488. The concord of persons.—A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like ego et ille followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with ego, or in the third in order to agree with ille? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their dignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most worthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said—