OBS. 3.–The article precedes its noun, and is never, by itself, placed after it; as, “Passion is _the_ drunkenness of _the_ mind.”–_Southey_. When an _adjective_ likewise precedes the noun, the article is usually placed before the adjective, that its power of limitation may extend over that also; as, “_A concise_ writer compresses his thoughts into _the fewest_ possible words.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 176.
“_The private_ path, _the secret_ acts of men, If noble, far _the noblest_ of their lives.”–_Young_.
OBS. 4.–The relative position of the article and the adjective is seldom a matter of indifference. Thus, it is good English to say, “_both the men_,” or, “_the two men_;” but we can by no means say, “_the both men_” or, “_two the men_.” Again, the two phrases, “_half a dollar_,” and “_a half dollar_,” though both good, are by no means equivalent. Of the pronominal adjectives, some exclude the article; some precede it; and some follow it, like other adjectives. The word _same_ is seldom, if ever used without the definite article or some stronger definitive before it; as, “On _the same_ day,”–“in _that same_ hour,”–“_These same_ gentlemen.” After the adjective _both_, the definite article _may_ be used, but it is generally _unnecessary_, and this is a sufficient reason for omitting it: as, “The following sentences will fully exemplify, to the young grammarian, _both the parts_ of this rule.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 192. Say, “_both parts_.” The adjective _few_ may be used either with or without an article, but not with the same import: as, “_The few_ who were present, were in the secret;” i. e., All then present knew the thing. “_Few_ that were present, were in the secret;” i.e., Not many then present knew the thing. “When I say, ‘There were _few_ men with him,’ I speak diminutively, and mean to represent them as inconsiderable; whereas, when I say, ‘There were _a few_ men with him,’ I evidently intend to make the most of them.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 171. See Etymology, Articles, Obs. 28.
OBS. 5.–The pronominal adjectives which exclude the article, are _any, each, either, every, much, neither, no_, or _none, some, this, that, these, those_. The pronominal adjectives which precede the article, are _all, both, many, such_, and _what_; as, “_All the_ world,”–“_Both the_ judges,”–“_Many a_[336] mile,”–“_Such a_ chasm,”–“_What a_ freak.” In like manner, any adjective of quality, when its meaning is limited by the adverb _too, so, as_, or _how_, is put before the article; as, “_Too great a_ study of strength, is found to betray writers into a harsh manner.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 179. “Like _many an_ other poor wretch, I now suffer _all the_ ill consequences of _so foolish an_ indulgence.” “_Such a_ gift is _too small a_ reward for _so great a_ labour.”–_Brightland’s Gram._, p. 95. “Here flows _as clear a_ stream as any in Greece. _How beautiful a_ prospect is here!”–_Bicknell’s Gram._, Part ii, p. 52. The pronominal adjectives which follow the article, are _few, former, first, latter, last, little, one, other_, and _same_; as, “An author might lean either to _the one [style]_ or to _the other_, and yet be beautiful.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 179. _Many_, like _few_, sometimes follows the article; as, “_The many_ favours which we have received.”–“In conversation, for _many a man_, they say, _a many men_.”–_Johnson’s Dict._ In this order of the words, _a_ seems awkward and needless; as,
“Told of _a many_ thousand warlike French.”–_Shak._
OBS. 6.–When the adjective is preceded by any other adverb than _too, so, as_, or _how_, the article is almost always placed before the adverb: as, “One of _the_ most complete models;”–“_An_ equally important question;”–“_An_ exceedingly rough passage;”–“_A_ very important difference.” The adverb _quite_, however, may be placed either before or after the article, though perhaps with a difference of construction: as, “This is _quite a_ different thing;”–or, “This is _a quite different_ thing.” “Finding it _quite an_ other thing;”–or, “Finding it _a quite other_ thing.”–_Locke, on Ed._, p. 153. Sometimes _two adverbs_ intervene between the article and the adjective; as, “We had a _rather more_ explicit account of the Novii.”–_Philol. Museum_, i, 458. But when an other adverb follows _too, so, as_, or _how_, the three words should be placed either before the article or after the noun; as, “Who stands there in _so purely poetical_ a light.”–_Ib._, i, 449. Better, perhaps: “_In a light so purely poetical_.”
OBS. 7.–The definitives _this, that_, and some others, though they supersede the article _an_ or _a_, may be followed by the adjective _one_; for we say, “_this one thing_,” but not, “_this a thing_.” Yet, in the following sentence, _this_ and _a_ being separated by other words, appear to relate to the same noun: “For who is able to judge _this_ thy so great _a_ people?”–_1 Kings_, iii, 9. But we may suppose the noun _people_ to be understood after _this_. Again, the following example, if it is not wrong, has an ellipsis of the word _use_ after the first _a_:
“For highest cordials all their virtue lose, By _a_ too frequent and too bold _a_ use.”–_Pomfret_.
OBS. 8.–When the adjective is placed _after_ the noun, the article generally retains its place before the noun, and is not repeated before the adjective: as, “_A_ man _ignorant_ of astronomy;”–“_The_ primrose _pale_.” In _Greek_, when an adjective is placed after its noun, if the article is applied to the noun, it is repeated before the adjective; as, “[Greek: Hae polis hae megalae,]”–“_The_ city _the_ great;” i.e., “The great city.” [337]
OBS. 9.–Articles, according to their own definition and nature, come _before_ their nouns; but the definite article and an adjective seem sometimes to be placed after the noun to which they both relate: as, “Section _the Fourth_;”–“Henry _the Eighth_.” Such examples, however, may possibly be supposed elliptical; as, “Section, _the fourth division_ of the chapter;”–“Henry, _the eighth king_ of that name:” and, if they are so, the article, in _English_, can never be placed after its noun, nor can two articles ever properly relate to one noun, in any particular construction of it. Priestley observes, “Some writers affect to _transpose_ these words, and place the numeral adjective first; [as,] ‘_The first Henry_.’ Hume’s History, Vol. i, p. 497. This construction is common with this writer, but there seems to be a _want of dignity_ in it.”–_Rudiments of E. Gram._, p. 150. Dr. Webster cites the word _Great_, in “_Alexander the Great_” as a _name_, or _part_ of a name; that is, he gives it as an instance of “_cognomination_.” See his _American Dict._, 8vo. And if this is right, the article may be said to relate to the epithet only, as it appears to do. For, if the word is taken substantively, there is certainly no ellipsis; neither is there any transposition in putting it last, but rather, as Priestley suggests, in putting it first.
OBS. 10.–The definite article is often prefixed to _comparatives_ and _superlatives_; and its effect is, as Murray observes, (in the words of Lowth,) “to mark the degree _the more_ strongly, and to define it _the more_ precisely: as, ‘_The more_ I examine it, _the better_ I like it.’ ‘I like this _the least_ of any.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 33; _Lowth’s_, 14. “For neither if we eat, are we _the better_; neither if we eat not, are we _the worse_.”–_1 Cor._, viii, 8. “One is not _the more_ agreeable to me for loving beef, as I do; nor _the less_ agreeable for preferring mutton.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. ii, p. 365. “They are not the men in the nation, _the most_ difficult to be replaced.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 148. In these instances, the article seems to be used _adverbially_, and to relate only to the _adjective_ or _adverb_ following it. (See observation fourth, on the Etymology of Adverbs.) Yet none of our grammarians have actually reckoned _the_ an adverb. After the _adjective_, the noun might perhaps be supplied; but when the word _the_ is added to an _adverb_, we must either call it an adverb, or make an exception to Rule 1st above: and if an exception is to be made, the brief form which I have given, cannot well be improved. For even if a noun be understood, it may not appear that the article relates to it, rather than to the degree of the quality. Thus: “_The_ deeper the well, _the_ clearer the water.” This Dr. Ash supposes to mean, “The deeper _well_ the well _is_, the clearer _water_ the water _is_.”–_Ash’s Gram._, p. 107. But does the text specify a _particular_ “deeper well” or “clearer water?” I think not. To what then does _the_ refer, but to the proportionate degree of _deeper_ and _clearer_?
OBS. 11.–The article the is sometimes elegantly used, after an idiom common in the French language, in lieu of a possessive pronoun; as, “He looked him full in _the_ face; i. e. in _his_ face.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 150. “Men who have not bowed _the knee_ to the image of Baal.”–_Rom._, xi, 4. That is, _their knees_.
OBS. 12.–The article _an_ or _a_, because it implies unity, is applicable to nouns of the singular number only; yet a collective noun, being singular in form, is sometimes preceded by this article even when it conveys the idea of plurality and takes a plural verb: as, “There _are_ a very great _number_ [of adverbs] ending in _ly_.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 63. “A _plurality_ of them _are_ sometimes felt at the same instant.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 114. In support of this construction, it would be easy to adduce a great multitude of examples from the most reputable writers; but still, as it seems not very consistent, to take any word plurally after restricting it to the singular, we ought rather to avoid this if we can, and prefer words that literally agree in number: as, “Of adverbs there _are_ very _many_ ending in _ly_”–“_More than one_ of them _are_ sometimes felt at the same instant.” The word _plurality_, like other collective nouns, is literally singular: as, “To produce the latter, a _plurality_ of objects _is_ necessary.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 224.
OBS. 13.–Respecting the form of the indefinite article, present practice differs a little from that of our ancient writers. _An_ was formerly used before all words beginning with _h_, and before several other words which are now pronounced in such a manner as to require _a_: thus, we read in the Bible, “_An_ help,”–“_an_ house,”–“_an_ hundred,”–“_an_ one,”–“_an_ ewer,”–“_an_ usurer;” whereas we now say, “_A_ help,”–“_a_ house,”–“_a_ hundred,”–“_a_ one,”–“_a_ ewer,”–“_a_ usurer.”
OBS. 14.–Before the word _humble_, with its compounds and derivatives, some use _an_, and others, _a_; according to their practice, in this instance, of sounding or suppressing the aspiration. Webster and Jameson sound the _h_, and consequently prefer _a_; as, “But _a humbling_ image is not always necessary to produce that effect.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 205. “O what a blessing is _a humble_ mind!”–_Christian Experience_, p. 342. But Sheridan, Walker, Perry, Jones, and perhaps a majority of fashionable speakers, leave the _h_ silent, and would consequently say, “_An humbling_ image,”–“_an humble_ mind,”–&c.
OBS. 15.–An observance of the principles on which the article is to be repeated or not repeated in a sentence, is of very great moment in respect to accuracy of composition. These principles are briefly stated in the notes below, but it is proper that the learner should know the reasons of the distinctions which are there made. By a repetition of the article before several adjectives in the same construction, a repetition of the noun is implied; but without a repetition of the article, the adjectives, in all fairness of interpretation, are confined to one and the same noun: as, “No figures will render _a cold_ or _an empty_ composition interesting.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 134. Here the author speaks of a cold composition and an empty composition as different things. “_The_ metaphorical and _the_ literal meaning _are_ improperly mixed.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 339. Here the verb are has two nominatives, one of which is expressed, and the other understood. “But _the_ third and _the_ last of these [forms] are seldom used.”–_Adam’s Lat. Gram._, p. 186. Here the verb “_are used_” has two nominatives, both of which are understood; namely, “the third _form_,” and “the last _form_.” Again: “_The original and present_ signification _is_ always retained.”–_Dr. Murray’s Hist. of Lang._, Vol. ii, p. 149. Here _one signification_ is characterized as being both original and present. “_A loose and verbose manner_ never _fails_ to create disgust.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 261. That is, _one manner_, loose and verbose. “To give _a_ short and yet clear and plain answer to this proposition.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. i, p. 533. That is, _one answer, short, clear, and plain_; for the conjunctions in the text connect nothing but the adjectives.
OBS. 16.–To avoid repetition, even of the little word _the_, we sometimes, with one article, join _inconsistent_ qualities to a _plural noun_;–that is, when the adjectives so differ as to individualize the things, we sometimes make the noun plural, in stead of repeating the article: as, “_The_ north and south _poles_;” in stead of, “_The_ north and _the_ south _pole_.”–“_The_ indicative and potential _moods_;” in stead of “_The_ indicative and _the_ potential _mood_.”–“_The_ Old and New _Testaments_;” in stead of, “_The_ Old and _the_ New _Testament_.” But, in any such case, to repeat the article when the noun is made plural, is a huge blunder; because it implies a repetition of the plural noun. And again, not to repeat the article when the noun is singular, is also wrong; because it forces the adjectives to coalesce in describing one and the same thing. Thus, to say, “_The_ north and south _pole_” is certainly wrong, unless we mean by it, _one pole_, or _slender stick of wood_, pointing north and south; and again, to say, “_The_ north and _the_ south _poles_,” is also wrong, unless we mean by it, _several poles at the north_ and _others at the south_. So the phrase, “_The_ Old and New _Testament_” is wrong, because we have not _one Testament that is both Old and New_; and again, “_The_ Old and _the_ New _Testaments_,” is wrong, because we have not several _Old Testaments and several New ones_: at least we have them not in the Bible.
OBS. 17.–Sometimes a noun that _admits no article_, is preceded by adjectives that do not describe the same thing; as, “Never to jumble _metaphorical and plain language_ together.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 146. This means, “_metaphorical language_ and _plain language_;” and, for the sake of perfect clearness, it would perhaps be better to express it so. “For as _intrinsic and relative beauty_ must often be blended in the same building, it becomes a difficult task to attain _both_ in any perfection.”–_Karnes, El. of Crit._, Vol. ii, p. 330. That is, “_intrinsic beauty_ and _relative beauty_” must often be blended; and this phraseology would be better. “In correspondence to that distinction of _male and female sex_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 74. This may be expressed as well or better, in half a dozen other ways; for the article may be added, or the noun may be made plural, with or without the article, and before or after the adjectives. “They make no distinction between causes of civil and criminal jurisdiction.”– _Adams’s Rhet._, Vol. i, p. 302. This means–“between causes of civil and _causes_ of criminal jurisdiction;” and, for the sake of perspicuity, it ought to have been so written,–or, still better, _thus_: “They make no distinction between civil causes and criminal.”
NOTES TO RULE I.
NOTE I.–When the indefinite article is required, _a_ should always be used before the sound of a consonant, and _an_, before that of a vowel; as, “With the talents of _an_ angel, a man may be _a_ fool.”–_Young_.
NOTE II.–The article _an_ or _a_ must never be so used as to relate, or even seem to relate, to a plural noun. The following sentence is therefore faulty: “I invited her to spend a day in viewing _a seat and gardens._”–_Rambler_, No. 34. Say, “a seat and _its_ gardens.”
NOTE III.–When nouns are joined in construction, with different adjuncts, different dependence, or positive contrast, the article, if it belong at all to the latter, must be repeated. The following sentence is therefore inaccurate: “She never considered the quality, but merit of her visitors.”–_Wm. Penn_. Say, “_the_ merit.” So the article in brackets is absolutely necessary to the sense and propriety of the following phrase, though not inserted by the learned author: “The Latin introduced between the Conquest and [_the_] reign of Henry the Eighth.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, p. 42.
NOTE IV.–When adjectives are connected, and the qualities belong to things individually different, though of the same name, the article should be repeated: as, “_A_ black and _a_ white horse;”–i. e., _two horses_, one black and the other white. “_The_ north and _the_ south line;”–i. e., _two lines_, running east and west.
NOTE V.–When adjectives are connected, and the qualities all belong to the same thing or things, the article should not be repeated: as, “_A_ black and white horse;”–i. e., _one_ horse, _piebald_. “_The_ north and south line;”–i. e., _one line_, running north and south, like a meridian. NOTE VI.–When two or more individual things of the same name are distinguished by adjectives that cannot unite to describe the same thing, the article must be added to each if the noun be singular, and to the first only if the noun follow them in the plural: as, “_The_ nominative and _the_ objective _case_;” or, “_The_ nominative and objective _cases_.”–“_The_ third, _the_ fifth, _the_ seventh, and _the_ eighth _chapter_;” or, “_The_ third, fifth, seventh, and eighth _chapters_.” [338]
NOTE VII.–When two phrases of the same sentence have any special correspondence with each other, the article, if used in the former, is in general required also in the latter: as, “For ye know neither _the_ day nor _the_ hour.”–_Matt._, xxv, 13. “Neither _the_ cold nor _the_ fervid are formed for friendship.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 209. “The vail of the temple was rent in twain, from _the_ top to _the_ bottom.”–_Matt._, xxvii, 51.
NOTE VIII.–When a special correspondence is formed between individual epithets, the noun which follows must not be made plural; because the article, in such a case, cannot be repeated as the construction of correspondents requires. Thus, it is improper to say, “Both _the_ first and second _editions_” or, “Both _the_ first and _the_ second _editions_” for the accurate phrase, “Both _the_ first and _the_ second _edition_;” and still worse to say, “Neither _the_ Old nor New _Testaments_” or, “Neither _the_ Old nor _the_ New _Testaments_” for the just expression, “Neither _the_ Old nor _the_ New _Testament_.” Yet we may say, “Neither _the old_ nor _the new statutes_” or, “Both _the early_ and _the late editions_;” for here the epithets severally apply to more than one thing.
NOTE IX.–In a series of three or more terms, if the article is used with any, it should in general be added either to every one, or else to the first only. The following phrase is therefore inaccurate: “Through their attention to the helm, the sails, or rigging.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, Vol. i, p. 11. Say, “_the_ rigging.”
NOTE X.–As the article _an_ or _a_ denotes “_one thing of a kind_,” it should not be used as we use _the_, to denote emphatically a _whole kind_; and again, when the species is said to be _of the genus_, no article should be used to limit the latter. Thus some will say, “_A jay_ is a sort of _a bird_;” whereas they ought to say, “_The jay_ is a sort _of bird_.” Because it is absurd to suggest, that _one jay_ is _a sort_ of _one bird_. Yet we may say, “_The jay_ is _a bird_,” or, “_A jay_ is _a bird_;” because, as every species is one under the genus, so every individual is one under both.
NOTE XI.–The article should not be used before the names of virtues, vices, passions, arts, or sciences, in their general sense; before terms that are strictly limited by other definitives; or before any noun whose signification is sufficiently definite without it: as, “_Falsehood_ is odious.”–“_Iron_ is useful.”–“_Beauty_ is vain.”–“_Admiration_ is useless, when it is not supported by _domestic worth_”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 30.
NOTE XII.–When titles are mentioned merely as titles; or names of things, merely as names or words; the article should not be used before them: as, “He is styled _Marquis_;” not, “_the_ Marquis,” or, “_a_ Marquis,”–“Ought a teacher to call his pupil _Master_?”–“_Thames_ is derived from the Latin name _Tam~esis_.”
NOTE XIII.–When a comparison or an alternative is made with two nouns, if both of them refer to the same subject, the article should not be inserted before the latter; if to different subjects, it should not be omitted: thus, if we say, “He is a better teacher than poet,” we compare different qualifications of the same man; but if we say, “He is a better teacher than _a_ poet,” we speak of different men, in regard to the same qualification.
NOTE XIV.–The definite article, or some other definitive, (as _this, that, these, those_,) is generally required before the antecedent to the pronoun _who_ or _which_ in a restrictive clause; as, “All _the men who_ were present, agreed to it.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 145. “The _thoughts which_ passion suggests are always plain and obvious ones.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 468. “The _things which_ are impossible with men, are possible with God.”–_Luke_, xviii, 27. See Etymology, Chap. V, Obs. 26th, &c., on Classes of Pronouns.
NOTE XV.–The article is generally required in that construction which converts a participle into a verbal or participial noun; as, “_The completing of_ this, by _the working-out of_ sin inherent, must be by the power and spirit of Christ in the heart.”–_Wm. Penn_. “They shall be _an abhorring_ unto all flesh.”–_Isaiah_, lxvi, 24. “For _the dedicating of_ the altar.”–_Numb._, vii, 11.
NOTE XVI.–The article should not be added to any participle that is not taken in all other respects as a noun; as, “For _the_ dedicating the altar.”–“He made a mistake in _the_ giving out the text.” Expunge _the_, and let _dedicating_ and _giving_ here stand as participles only; for in the construction of nouns, they must have not only a definitive before them, but the preposition _of_ after them.
NOTE XVII.–The false syntax of articles properly includes every passage in which there is any faulty insertion, omission, choice, or position, of this part of speech. For example: “When the verb is _a_ passive, the agent and object change places.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 73. Better: “When the verb is _passive_, the agent and _the_ object change places.” “Comparisons used by the sacred poets, are generally short.”–_Russell’s Gram._, p. 87. Better: “_The_ comparisons,” &c. “Pronoun means _for noun_, and _is used_ to _avoid the_ too frequent repetition of _the_ noun.”–_Infant School Gram._, p. 89. Say rather: “_The_ pronoun _is put_ for _a_ noun, and is used to _prevent_ too frequent a repetition of the noun.” Or: “_The word_ PRONOUN means _for noun_; and _a pronoun_ is used to prevent too frequent a repetition of _some_ noun.”
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE I.
[Fist][The examples of False Syntax placed under the rules and notes, are to be corrected _orally_ by the pupil, according to the formules given, or according to others framed in like manner, and adapted to the several notes.]
EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.–AN OR A.
“I have seen an horrible thing in the house of Israel.”–_Hosea_, vi, 10.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the article _an_ is used before _horrible_, which begins with the sound of the consonant _h_. But, according to Note 1st, under Rule 1st, “When the indefinite article is required, _a_ should always be used before the sound of a consonant, and _an_, before that of a vowel.” Therefore, _an_ should be _a_; thus, “I have seen _a_ horrible thing in the house of Israel.”]
“There is an harshness in the following sentences.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 188. “Indeed, such an one is not to be looked for.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 27. “If each of you will be disposed to approve himself an useful citizen.”–_Ib._, p. 263. “Land with them had acquired almost an European value.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 325. “He endeavoured to find out an wholesome remedy.”–_Neef’s Method of Ed._, p. 3. “At no time have we attended an Yearly Meeting more to our own satisfaction.”–_The Friend_, v, 224. “Addison was not an humourist in character.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 303. “Ah me! what an one was he?”–_Lily’s Gram._, p. 49. “He was such an one as I never saw.”–_Ib._ “No man can be a good preacher, who is not an useful one.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 283. “An usage which is too frequent with Mr. Addison.”–_Ib._, p. 200. “Nobody joins the voice of a sheep with the shape of an horse.”–_Locke’s Essay_, p. 298. “An universality seems to be aimed at by the omission of the article.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 154. “Architecture is an useful as well as a fine art.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 335. “Because the same individual conjunctions do not preserve an uniform signification.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. 78. “Such a work required the patience and assiduity of an hermit.”–_Johnson’s Life of Morin_. “Resentment is an union of sorrow with malignity.”–_Rambler_, No. 185. “His bravery, we know, was an high courage of blasphemy.”–_Pope_. “Hyssop; a herb of bitter taste.”–_Pike’s Heb. Lex._, p. 3.
“On each enervate string they taught the note To pant, or tremble through an Eunuch’s throat.”–_Pope_.
UNDER NOTE II.–AN OR A WITH PLURALS.
“At a sessions of the court in March, it was moved,” &c.–_Hutchinson’s Hist. of Mass._, i, 61. “I shall relate my conversations, of which I kept a memoranda.”–_Duchess D’Abrantes_, p. 26. “I took another dictionary, and with a scissors cut out, for instance, the word ABACUS.”–_A. B. Johnson’s Plan of a Dict._, p. 12. “A person very meet seemed he for the purpose, of a forty-five years old.”–_Gardiner’s Music of Nature_, p. 338. “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings.”–_Luke_, ix, 28.” There were slain of them upon a three thousand men.”–_1 Mac._, iv, 15.” Until I had gained the top of these white mountains, which seemed another Alps of snow.”–_Addison, Tat._, No. 161. “To make them a satisfactory amends for all the losses they had sustained.”–_Goldsmith’s Greece_, p. 187. “As a first fruits of many more that shall be gathered.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 506. “It makes indeed a little amends, by inciting us to oblige people.”–_Sheffield’s Works_, ii, 229. “A large and lightsome backstairs leads up to an entry above.”–_Ib._, p. 260. “Peace of mind is an honourable amends for the sacrifices of interest.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 162; _Smith’s_, 138. “With such a spirit and sentiments were hostilities carried on.”–_Robertson’s America_, i, 166. “In the midst of a thick woods, he had long lived a voluntary recluse.”–_G. B_. “The flats look almost like a young woods.”–_Morning Chronicle_. “As we went on, the country for a little ways improved, but scantily.”–_Essex County Freeman_, Vol. ii, No. 11. “Whereby the Jews were permitted to return into their own country, after a seventy years captivity at Babylon.”–_Rollin’s An. Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 20. “He did riot go a great ways into the country.”–_Gilbert’s Gram._, p. 85.
“A large amends by fortune’s hand is made, And the lost Punic blood is well repay’d.”–_Rowe’s Lucan_, iv, 1241.
UNDER NOTE III.–NOUNS CONNECTED.
“As where a landscape is conjoined with the music of birds and odour of flowers.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 117. “The last order resembles the second in the mildness of its accent, and softness of its pause.”–_Ib._, ii, 113. “Before the use of the loadstone or knowledge of the compass.”–_Dryden_. “The perfect participle and imperfect tense ought not to be confounded.”–_Murray’s Gram._, ii, 292. “In proportion as the taste of a poet, or orator, becomes more refined.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 27. “A situation can never be intricate, as long as there is an angel, devil, or musician, to lend a helping hand.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 285. “Avoid rude sports: an eye is soon lost, or bone broken.”–“Not a word was uttered, nor sign given.”–_Brown’s Inst._, p. 125. “I despise not the doer, but deed.”–_Ibid._ “For the sake of an easier pronunciation and more agreeable sound.”–_Lowth_. “The levity as well as loquacity of the Greeks made them incapable of keeping up the true standard of history.”– _Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 115.
UNDER NOTE IV.–ADJECTIVES CONNECTED.
“It is proper that the vowels be a long and short one.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 327. “Whether the person mentioned was seen by the speaker a long or short time before.”–_Ib._, p. 70; _Fisk’s_, 72. “There are three genders, Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter.”–_Adam’s Lat. Gram._, p. 8. “The numbers are two; Singular and Plural.”–_Ib._, p. 80; _Gould’s_, 77. “The persons are three; First, Second, [and] Third.”–_Adam, et al_. “Nouns and pronouns have three cases; the nominative, possessive, and objective.”–_Comly’s Gram._, p. 19; _Ingersoll’s_, 21. “Verbs have five moods; namely, the Indicative, Potential, Subjunctive, Imperative, and Infinitive.”– _Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 35; _Lennie’s_, 20. “How many numbers have pronouns? Two, the singular and plural.”–_Bradley’s Gram._, p. 82. “To distinguish between an interrogative and exclamatory sentence.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 280; _Comly’s_, 163; _Ingersoll’s_, 292. “The first and last of which are compounded members.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 123. “In the last lecture, I treated of the concise and diffuse, the nervous and feeble manner.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 183. “The passive and neuter verbs, I shall reserve for some future conversation.”–_Ingersoll’s Gram._, p. 69. “There are two voices; the Active and Passive.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 59; _Gould’s_, 87. “Whose is rather the poetical than regular genitive of _which_.”–_Dr. Johnson’s Gram._, p. 7. “To feel the force of a compound, or derivative word.”–_Town’s Analysis_, p. 4. “To preserve the distinctive uses of the copulative and disjunctive conjunctions.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 150; _Ingersoll’s_, 233. “E has a long and short sound in most languages.”– _Bicknell’s Gram._, Part ii, p. 13. “When the figurative and literal sense are mixed and jumbled together.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 151. “The Hebrew, with which the Canaanitish and Phoenician stand in connection.”–CONANT: _Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, p. 28. “The languages of Scandinavia proper, the Norwegian and Swedish.”–_Fowler, ib._, p. 31.
UNDER NOTE V.–ADJECTIVES CONNECTED.
“The path of truth is a plain and a safe path”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 236. “Directions for acquiring a just and a happy elocution.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 144. “Its leading object is to adopt a correct and an easy method.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 9. “How can it choose but wither in a long and a sharp winter.”–_Cowley’s Pref._, p. vi. “Into a dark and a distant unknown.”–_Chalmers, on Astronomy_, p. 230. “When the bold and the strong enslaved his fellow man.”–_Chazotte’s Essay_, p. 21. “We now proceed to consider the things most essential to an accurate and a perfect sentence.” –_Murray’s Gram._, p. 306. “And hence arises a second and a very considerable source of the improvement of taste.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 18. “Novelty produces in the mind a vivid and an agreeable emotion.”–_Ib._, p. 50. “The deepest and the bitterest feeling still is, the separation.”– _Dr. M’Rie_. “A great and a good man looks beyond time.”–_Brown’s Institutes_, p. 125. “They made but a weak and an ineffectual resistance.” –_Ib._ “The light and the worthless kernels will float.”–_Ib._ “I rejoice that there is an other and a better world.”–_Ib._ “For he is determined to _revise_ his work, and present to the publick another and a better edition.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 7. “He hoped that this title would secure him an ample and an independent authority.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 172: see _Priestley’s_, 147. “There is however another and a more limited sense.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, Vol. ii, p. 232.
UNDER NOTE VI.–ARTICLES OR PLURALS.
“This distinction forms, what are called the diffuse and the concise styles.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 176. “Two different modes of speaking, distinguished at first by the denominations of the Attic and the Asiatic manners.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, Vol. i, p. 83. “But the great design of uniting the Spanish and the French monarchies under the former was laid.”– _Bolingbroke, on History_, p. 180. “In the solemn and the poetic styles, it [_do_ or _did_] is often rejected.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 68. “They cannot be at the same time in the objective and the nominative cases.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 151; _Ingersoll’s_, 239; _R. G. Smith’s_, 127. “They are named the POSITIVE, the COMPARATIVE, and the SUPERLATIVE degrees.”–_Smart’s Accidence_, p. 27. “Certain Adverbs are capable of taking an Inflection, namely, that of the comparative and the superlative degrees.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, Sec.321. “In the subjunctive mood, the present and the imperfect tenses often carry with them a future sense.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 187; _Fisk’s_, 131. “The imperfect, the perfect, the pluperfect, and the first future tenses of this mood, are conjugated like the same tenses of the indicative.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 145. “What rules apply in parsing personal pronouns of the second and third person?”–_Ib._, p. 116. “Nouns are sometimes in the nominative or objective case after the neuter verb to be, or after an active-intransitive or passive verb.”–_Ib._, p. 55. “The verb varies its endings in the singular in order to agree in form with the first, second, and third person of its nominative.”–_Ib._, p. 47. “They are identical in effect, with the radical and the vanishing stresses.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 339. “In a sonnet the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth line rhyme to each other: so do the second, third, sixth, and seventh line; the ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth line; and the tenth, twelfth, and fourteenth line.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 311. “The iron and the golden ages are run; youth and manhood are departed.”–_Wright’s Athens_, p. 74. “If, as you say, the iron and the golden ages are past, the youth and the manhood of the world.”–_Ib._ “An Exposition of the Old and New Testament.”–_Matthew Henry’s Title-page_. “The names and order of the books of the Old and New Testament.”–_Friends’ Bible_, p. 2; _Bruce’s_, p. 2; et al. “In the second and third person of that tense.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 81. “And who still unites in himself the human and the divine natures.”–_Gurney’s Evidences_, p. 59. “Among whom arose the Italian, the Spanish, the French, and the English languages.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 111. “Whence arise these two, the singular and the plural Numbers.”–_Burn’s Gram._, p. 32.
UNDER NOTE VII.–CORRESPONDENT TERMS.
“Neither the definitions, nor examples, are entirely the same with his.”–_Ward’s Pref. to Lily’s Gram._, p. vi. “Because it makes a discordance between the thought and expression.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 24. “Between the adjective and following substantive.”–_Ib._ ii, 104. “Thus, Athens became both the repository and nursery of learning.”–_Chazotte’s Essay_, p. 28. “But the French pilfered from both the Greek and Latin.”–_Ib._, p. 102. “He shows that Christ is both the power and wisdom of God.”–_The Friend_, x, 414. “That he might be Lord both of the dead and living.”–_Rom._, xiv, 9. “This is neither the obvious nor grammatical meaning of his words.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 209. “Sometimes both the accusative and infinitive are understood.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 155; _Gould’s_, 158. “In some cases we can use either the nominative or accusative promiscuously.”–_Adam_, p. 156; _Gould_, 159. “Both the former and latter substantive are sometimes to be understood.”–_Adam_, p. 157; _Gould_, 160. “Many whereof have escaped both the commentator and poet himself.”–_Pope_. “The verbs must and ought have both a present and past signification.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 108. “How shall we distinguish between the friends and enemies of the government?”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 352. “Both the ecclesiastical and secular powers concurred in those measures.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 260. “As the period has a beginning and end within itself it implies an inflexion.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, ii, 245. “Such as ought to subsist between a principal and accessory.”–_Kames, on Crit._, ii, 39.
UNDER NOTE VIII.–CORRESPONDENCE PECULIAR.
“When both the upward and the downward slides occur in pronouncing a syllable, they are called a _Circumflex_ or _Wave_.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, pp. 75 and 104. “The word _that_ is used both in the nominative and objective cases.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 69. “But all the other moods and tenses of the verbs, both in the active and passive voices, are conjugated at large.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 81. “Some writers on Grammar object to the propriety of admitting the second future, in both the indicative and subjunctive moods.”–_Ib._, p. 82. “The same conjunction governing both the indicative and the subjunctive moods, in the same sentence, and in the same circumstances, seems to be a great impropriety.”–_Ib._, p. 207. “The true distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative moods in this tense.”–_Ib._, p. 208. “I doubt of his capacity to teach either the French or English languages.”–_Chazotte’s Essay_, p. 7. “It is as necessary to make a distinction between the active transitive and the active intransitive forms of the verb, as between the active and passive forms.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 13.
UNDER NOTE IX.–A SERIES OF TERMS.
“As comprehending the terms uttered by the artist, the mechanic, and husbandman.”–_Chazotte’s Essay_, p. 24. “They may be divided into four classes–the Humanists, Philanthropists, Pestalozzian and the Productive Schools.”–_Smith’s New Gram._, p. iii. “Verbs have six tenses, the Present, the Imperfect, the Perfect, the Pluperfect, and the First and Second Future tenses.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 138; _L. Murray’s_, 68; _R. C. Smith’s_, 27; _Alger’s_, 28. “_Is_ is an irregular verb neuter, indicative mood, present tense, and the third person singular.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 2. “_Should give_ is an irregular verb active, in the potential mood, the imperfect tense, and the first person plural.”–_Ibid._ “_Us_ is a personal pronoun, first person plural, and in the objective case.”–_Ibid._ “_Them_ is a personal pronoun, of the third person, the plural number, and in the objective case.”–_Ibid._ “It is surprising that the Jewish critics, with all their skill in dots, points, and accents, never had the ingenuity to invent a point of interrogation, of admiration, or a parenthesis.”–_Wilson’s Hebrew Gram._, p. 47. “The fifth, sixth, seventh, and the eighth verse.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 263. “Substitutes have three persons; the First, Second, and the Third.”–_Ib._, p. 34. “_John’s_ is a proper noun, of the masculine gender, the third person, singular number, possessive case, and governed by _wife_, by Rule I.”–_Smith’s New Gram._, p. 48. “Nouns in the English language have three cases; the nominative, the possessive, and objective.”–_Barrett’s Gram._, p. 13; _Alexander’s_, 11. “The Potential [mood] has four [tenses], viz. the Present, the Imperfect, the Perfect, and Pluperfect.”–_Ingersoll’s Gram._, p. 96.
“Where Science, Law, and Liberty depend, And own the patron, patriot, and the friend.”–_Savage, to Walpole_.
UNDER NOTE X.–SPECIES AND GENUS.
“A pronoun is a part of speech put for a noun.”–_Paul’s Accidence_, p. 11. “A verb is a part of speech declined with mood and tense.”–_Ib._, p. 15. “A participle is a part of speech derived of a verb.”–_Ib._, p. 38. “An adverb is a part of speech joined to verbs to declare their signification.”–_Ib._, p. 40. “A conjunction is a part of speech that joineth sentences together.”–_Ib._, p. 41. “A preposition is a part of speech most commonly set before other parts.”–_Ib._, p. 42. “An interjection is a part of speech which betokeneth a sudden motion or passion of the mind.”–_Ib._, p. 44. “An enigma or riddle is also a species of allegory.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 151; _Murray’s Gram._, 343. “We may take from the Scriptures a very fine example of an allegory.”–_Ib._: _Blair_, 151; _Mur._, 341. “And thus have you exhibited a sort of a sketch of art.”–HARRIS: _in Priestley’s Gram._, p. 176. “We may ‘imagine a subtle kind of a reasoning,’ as Mr. Harris acutely observes.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 71. “But, before entering on these, I shall give one instance of a very beautiful metaphor, that I may show the figure to full advantage.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 143. “Aristotle, in his Poetics, uses metaphor in this extended sense, for any figurative meaning imposed upon a word; as a whole put for the part, or a part for a whole; the species for the genus, or a genus for the species.”–_Ib._, p. 142. “It shows what kind of an apple it is of which we are speaking.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 69. “Cleon was another sort of a man.”–_Goldsmith’s Greece_, Vol. i, p. 124. “To keep off his right wing, as a kind of a reserved body.”–_Ib._, ii, 12. “This part of speech is called a verb.”–_Mack’s Gram._, p. 70. “What sort of a thing is it?”–_Hiley’s Gram._, p. 20. “What sort of a charm do they possess?”–_Bullions’s Principles of E. Gram._, p. 73.
“Dear Welsted, mark, in dirty hole, That painful animal, a Mole.”–_Note to Dunciad_, B. ii, l. 207.
UNDER NOTE XI.–ARTICLES NOT REQUISITE.
“Either thou or the boys were in the fault.”–_Comly’s Key, in Gram._, p. 174. “It may, at the first view, appear to be too general.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 222; _Ingersoll’s_, 275. “When the verb has a reference to future time.”–_Ib.: M._, p. 207; _Ing._, 264. “No; they are the language of imagination rather than of a passion.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 165. “The dislike of the English Grammar, which has so generally prevailed, can only be attributed to the intricacy of syntax.”–_Russell’s Gram._, p. iv. “Is that ornament in a good taste?”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 326. “There are not many fountains in a good taste.”–_Ib._, ii, 329. “And I persecuted this way unto the death.”–_Acts_, xxii, 4. “The sense of the feeling can, indeed, give us the idea of extension.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 196. “The distributive adjective pronouns, _each, every, either_, agree with the nouns, pronouns, and verbs, of the singular number only.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 165; _Lowth’s_, 89. “Expressing by one word, what might, by a circumlocution, be resolved into two or more words belonging to the other parts of speech.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 84. “By the certain muscles which operate all at the same time.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 19. “It is sufficient here to have observed thus much in the general concerning them.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 112. “Nothing disgusts us sooner than the empty pomp of language.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 319.
UNDER NOTE XII.–TITLES AND NAMES.
“He is entitled to the appellation of a gentleman.”–_Brown’s Inst._, p. 126. “Cromwell assumed the title of a Protector.”–_Ib._ “Her father is honoured with the title of an Earl.”–_Ib._ “The chief magistrate is styled a President.”–_Ib._ “The highest title in the state is that of the Governor.”–_Ib._ “That boy is known by the name of the Idler.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 205. “The one styled the Mufti, is the head of the ministers of law and religion.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 360. “Banging all that possessed them under one class, he called that whole class _a tree_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 73. “For the oak, the pine, and the ash, were names of whole classes of objects.”–_Ib._, p. 73. “It is of little importance whether we give to some particular mode of expression the name of a trope, or of a figure.”–_Ib._, p. 133. “The collision of a vowel with itself is the most ungracious of all combinations, and has been doomed to peculiar reprobation under the name of an hiatus.”–_J. Q. Adams’s Rhet._, Vol. ii, p. 217. “We hesitate to determine, whether the _Tyrant_ alone, is the nominative, or whether the nominative includes the spy.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 246. “Hence originated the customary abbreviation of _twelve months_ into a _twelve-month_; _seven nights_ into _se’night_; _fourteen nights_ into a _fortnight_.”–_Webster’s Improved Gram._, p. 105.
UNDER NOTE XIII.–COMPARISONS AND ALTERNATIVES.
“He is a better writer than a reader.”–_W. Allen’s False Syntax, Gram._, p. 332. “He was an abler mathematician than a linguist.”–_Ib._ “I should rather have an orange than apple.”–_Brown’s Inst._, p. 126. “He was no less able a negotiator, than a courageous warrior.”–_Smollett’s Voltaire_, Vol. i, p. 181. “In an epic poem we pardon many negligences that would not be permitted in a sonnet or epigram.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 186. “That figure is a sphere, or a globe, or a ball.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 258.
UNDER NOTE XIV.–ANTECEDENTS TO WHO OR WHICH.
“Carriages which were formerly in use, were very clumsy.”–_Inst._, p. 126. “The place is not mentioned by geographers who wrote at that time.”–_Ib._ “Questions which a person asks himself in contemplation, ought to be terminated by points of interrogation.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 279; _Comly’s_, 162; _Ingersoll’s_, 291. “The work is designed for the use of persons, who may think it merits a place in their Libraries.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo., p. iii. “That persons who think confusedly, should express themselves obscurely, is not to be wondered at.”–_Ib._, p. 298. “Grammarians who limit the number to two, or at most to three, do not reflect.”–_Ib._, p. 75. “Substantives which end in _ian_, are those that signify profession.”–_Ib._, p. 132. “To these may be added verbs, which chiefly among the poets govern the dative.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 170; _Gould’s_, 171. “Consonants are letters, which cannot be sounded without the aid of a vowel.”–_Bucke’s Gram._, p. 9. “To employ the curiosity of persons who are skilled in grammar.”–_Murray’s Gram., Pref._, p. iii. “This rule refers only to nouns and pronouns, which have the same bearing or relation.”–_Ib._, i, p. 204. “So that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.”–_Heb._, xi, 3. “Man is an imitative creature; he may utter sounds, which he has heard.”–_Wilson’s Essay on Gram._, p. 21. “But men, whose business is wholly domestic, have little or no use for any language but their own.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 5.
UNDER NOTE XV.–PARTICIPIAL NOUNS.
“Great benefit may be reaped from reading of histories.”–_Sewel’s Hist._, p. iii. “And some attempts were made towards writing of history.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 110. “It is Invading of the Priest’s Office for any other to Offer it.”–_Right of Tythes_, p. 200. “And thus far of forming of verbs.”–_Walker’s Art of Teaching_, p. 35. “And without shedding of blood is no remission.”–_Heb._, ix, 22. “For making of measures we have the best method here in England.”–_Printer’s Gram._ “This is really both admitting and denying, at once.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 72. “And hence the origin of making of parliaments.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, Vol. i, p. 71. “Next thou objectest, that having of saving light and grace presupposes conversion. But that I deny: for, on the contrary, conversion presupposeth having light and grace.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. i, p. 143. “They cried down wearing of rings and other superfluities as we do.”–_Ib._, i, 236. “Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.”–_1 Peter_, iii, 3. “In spelling of derivative Words, the Primitive must be kept whole.”–_British Gram._, p. 50; _Buchanan’s Syntax_, 9. “And the princes offered for dedicating of the altar.”–_Numbers_, vii, 10. “Boasting is not only telling of lies, but also many unseemly truths.”–_Sheffield’s Works_, ii, 244. “We freely confess that forbearing of prayer in the wicked is sinful.”–_Barclay_, i, 316. “For revealing of a secret, there is no remedy.”–_Inst. E. Gram._, p. 126. “He turned all his thoughts to composing of laws for the good of the state.”–_Rollin’s Ancient Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 38.
UNDER NOTE XVI.–PARTICIPLES, NOT NOUNS. “It is salvation to be kept from falling into a pit, as truly as to be taken out of it after the falling in.”–_Barclay_, i, 210. “For in the receiving and embracing the testimony of truth, they felt eased.”–_Ib._, i, 469. “True regularity does not consist in the having but a single rule, and forcing every thing to conform to it.”–_Philol. Museum_, i, 664. “To the man of the world, this sound of glad tidings appears only an idle tale, and not worth the attending to.”–_Life of Tho. Say_, p. 144. “To be the deliverer of the captive Jews, by the ordering their temple to be re-built,” &c.–_Rollin_, ii, 124. “And for the preserving them from being defiled.”–_N. E. Discipline_, p. 133. “A wise man will avoid the showing any excellence in trifles.”–_Art of Thinking_, p. 80. “Hirsutus had no other reason for the valuing a book.”–_Rambler_, No. 177; _Wright’s Gram._, p. 190. “To the being heard with satisfaction, it is necessary that the speaker should deliver himself with ease.”–_Sheridan’s Elocution_, p. 114. “And to the being well heard, and clearly understood, a good and distinct articulation contributes more, than power of voice.”–_Ib._, p. 117.
“_Potential_ means the having power or will; As, If you _would_ improve, you _should_ be still.” –_Tobitt’s Gram._, p. 31.
UNDER NOTE XVII.–VARIOUS ERRORS.
“For the same reason, a neuter verb cannot become a passive.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 74. “The period is the whole sentence complete in itself.”–_Ib._, p. 115. “The colon or member is a chief constructive part, or greater division of a sentence.”–_Ib._ “The semicolon or half member, is a less constructive part or subdivision, of a sentence or member.”–_Ib._ “A sentence or member is again subdivided into commas or segments.”–_Ib._, p. 116. “The first error that I would mention, is, a too general attention to the dead languages, with a neglect of our own.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 3. “One third of the importations would supply the demands of people.”–_Ib._, p. 119. “And especially in grave stile.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 72. “By too eager pursuit, he ran a great risk of being disappointed.”–_Murray’s Key, Octavo Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 201. “Letters are divided into vowels and consonants.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 7; _and others_. “Consonants are divided into mutes and semi-vowels.”–_Ib._, i, 8; _and others_. “The first of these forms is most agreeable to the English idiom.”–_Ib._, i, 176. “If they gain, it is a too dear rate.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 504. “A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun, to prevent a too frequent repetition of it.”–_Maunder’s Gram._, p. 1. “This vulgar error might perhaps arise from a too partial fondness for the Latin.”–_Dr. Ash’s Gram., Pref._, p. iv. “The groans which a too heavy load extorts from her.”–_Hitchcock, on Dyspepsy_, p. 50. “The numbers [of a verb] are, of course, singular and plural.”–_Bucke’s Gram._ p. 58. “To brook no meanness, and to stoop to no dissimulation, are the indications of a great mind.”–_Murray’s Key_, ii, 236. “This mode of expression rather suits familiar than grave style.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, 198. “This use of the word rather suits familiar and low style.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 134. “According to the nature of the composition the one or other may be predominant.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 102. “Yet the commonness of such sentences prevents in a great measure a too early expectation of the end.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 411. “An eulogy or a philippie may be pronounced by an individual of one nation upon the subject of another.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, i, 298. “A French sermon, is for most part, a warm animated exhortation.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 288. “I do not envy those who think slavery no very pitiable a lot.”–_Channing, on Emancipation_, p. 52. “The auxiliary and principal united, constitute a tense.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, 75. “There are some verbs which are defective with respect to persons.”–_Ib._, i, 109. “In youth, the habits of industry are most easily acquired.”–_Murray’s Key_, ii, 235. “Apostrophe (‘) is used in place of a letter left out.”–_Bullions’s Eng. Gram._, p. 156.
CHAPTER III.–CASES, OR NOUNS.
The rules for the construction of Nouns, or Cases, are seven; hence this chapter, according to the order adopted above, reviews the series of rules from the second rule to the eighth, inclusively. Though _Nouns_ are here the topic, all these seven rules apply alike to _Nouns and to Pronouns_; that is, to all the words of our language which are susceptible of _Cases_.
RULE II.–NOMINATIVES.
A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case: as, “The _Pharisees_ also, _who_ were covetous, heard all these things; and _they_ derided him.”–_Luke_, xvi, 14. “But where the _meekness_ of self-knowledge veileth the front of self-respect, there look _thou_ for the man whom _none_ can know but _they_ will honour.”–_Book of Thoughts_, p. 66.
“Dost _thou_ mourn Philander’s fate? _I_ know _thou_ sayst it: says thy _life_ the same?” –_Young_, N. ii, l. 22.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE II.
OBS. 1.–To this rule, there are _no exceptions_; and nearly all nominatives, or far the greater part, are to be parsed by it. There are however _four_ different ways of disposing of the nominative case. _First_, it is generally _the subject of a verb_, according to Rule 2d. _Secondly_, it may be put _in apposition_ with an other nominative, according to Rule 3d. _Thirdly_, it may be put after a verb or a participle _not transitive_, according to Rule 6th. _Fourthly_, it may be put _absolute_, or may help to form a _phrase that_ is _independent_ of the rest of the sentence, according to Rule 8th.
OBS. 2.–The subject, or nominative, is generally placed _before_ the verb; as, “_Peace dawned_ upon his mind.”–_Johnson_. “_What is written_ in the law?”–_Bible_. But, in the following nine cases, the subject of the verb is usually placed _after_ it, or after the first auxiliary: 1. When a question is asked without an interrogative pronoun in the nominative case; as, “_Shall mortals be_ implacable?”–_Hooke_. “What _art thou doing_?”–_Id._ “How many loaves _have ye_?”–_Bible_. “_Are they_ Israelites? so _am I_.”–_Ib._
2. When the verb is in the imperative mood; as, “_Go thou_”–“_Come ye_” But, with this mood, the pronoun is very often omitted and understood; as, “Philip saith unto him, _Come_ and _see_”–_John_, i, 46. “And he saith unto them, _Be_ not _affrighted_.”–_Mark_, xvi, 5.
3. When an earnest wish, or other strong feeling, is expressed; as, “_May she be_ happy!”–“How _were we struck_!”–_Young_. “Not as the world giveth, _give I_ unto you.”–_Bible_.
4. When a supposition is made without the conjunction _if_; as, “_Had they known_ it;” for, “_If_ they had known it.”–“_Were it_ true;” for, “_If_ it were true.”–“_Could we draw_ by the covering of the grave;” for, “_If_ we could draw,” &c.
5. When _neither_ or _nor_, signifying _and not_, precedes the verb; as, “This was his fear; _nor was his apprehension_ groundless.”–“Ye shall not eat of it, _neither shall ye touch_ it.”–_Gen._, iii, 3.
6. When, for the sake of emphasis, some word or words are placed before the verb, which more naturally come after it; as, “Here _am I_.”–“Narrow _is_ the _way_.”–“Silver and gold _have I_ none; but such as I have, _give I_ thee.”–_Bible_.
7. When the verb has no regimen, and is itself emphatical; as, “_Echo_ the _mountains_ round.”–_Thomson_. “After the Light Infantry _marched_ the _Grenadiers_, then _followed_ the _Horse_.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 71.
8. When the verbs, _say, answer, reply_, and the like, introduce the parts of a dialogue; as, “‘Son of affliction,’ _said Omar_, ‘who art thou?’ ‘My name,’ _replied_ the _stranger_, ‘is Hassan.'”–_Dr. Johnson_.
9. When the adverb _there_ precedes the verb; as, “There _lived_ a _man_.”–_Montgomery_. “In all worldly joys, there _is_ a secret _wound_.”–_Owen_. This use of _there_, the general introductory adverb of place, is idiomatic, and somewhat different from the use of the same word in reference to a particular locality; as, “Because _there_ was not much water _there_.”–_John_, iii, 23.
OBS. 3.–In exclamations, and some other forms of expression, a few verbs are liable to be suppressed, the ellipsis being obvious; as, “How different [is] this from the philosophy of Greece and Rome!”–DR. BEATTIE: _Murray’s Sequel_, p. 127. “What a lively picture [is here] of the most disinterested and active benevolence!”–HERVEY: _ib._, p. 94. “When Adam [spake] thus to Eve.”–MILTON: _Paradise Lost_, B. iv, l. 610.
OBS. 4.–Though we often use nouns in the nominative case to show whom we address, yet the imperative verb takes no other nominative of the second person, than the simple personal pronoun, _thou, ye_, or _you_, expressed or understood. It would seem that some, who ought to know better, are liable to mistake for the subject of such a verb, the noun which we put absolute in the nominative by direct address. Of this gross error, the following is an example: “_Study boys_. In this sentence,” (says its author,) “_study_ is a verb of the second person, plural number, and agrees with its nominative case, _boys_–according to the rule: A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person. _Boys_ is a noun _of_ the second person, plural number, masculine gender, in the nominative case to the verb study.”–_Ingersoll’s Gram._, p. 17.[339] Now the fact is, that this laconic address, of three syllables, is written wrong; being made bad English for want of a comma between the two words. Without this mark, _boys_ must be an objective, governed by _study_; and with it, a nominative, put absolute by direct address. But, in either case, _study_ agrees with _ye_ or _you_ understood, and has not the noun for its subject, or nominative.
OBS. 5.–Some authors say, and if the first person be no exception, say truly: “The nominative case to a verb, unless it be a pronoun, is always of the _third_ person.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 141. But W. B. Fowle will have all pronouns to be _adjectives_. Consequently all his verbs, of every sort, agree with nouns “expressed or understood.” This, and every other absurd theory of language, can easily be made out, by means of a few perversions, which may be called corrections, and a sufficient number of interpolations, made under pretence of filling up ellipses. Thus, according to this author, “They fear,” means, “They _things spoken of_ fear.”–_True Eng. Gram._, p, 33. And, “_John, open_ the door,” or, “_Boys, stop_ your noise,” admits no comma. And, “Be grateful, ye children,” and, “Be ye grateful children,” are, in his view, every way equivalent: the comma in the former being, in his opinion, needless. See _ib._, p. 39.
OBS. 6.–Though the nominative and objective cases of nouns do not differ in form, it is nevertheless, in the opinion of many of our grammarians, improper to place any noun in both relations at once, because this produces a confusion in the syntax of the word. Examples: “He then goes on to declare that there _are_, and distinguish _of_, four _manners_ of saying _Per se_.”–_Walker’s Treatise of Particles_, p. xii. Better: “He then proceeds to show, that _per se_ is susceptible of four different senses.” “In just allegory _and_ similitude there is always a propriety, or, if you choose to call it, _congruity_, in the literal sense, as well as a distinct meaning or sentiment suggested, which is called the figurative sense.”–_Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 291. Better: “In just allegory _or_ similitude, there is always a propriety–or, if you choose to call it _so, a congruity_–in the literal sense,” &c. “It must then be meant of his sins who _makes_, not of his who _becomes_, the convert.”–_Atterbury’s Sermons_, i, 2. Better: “It must then be meant of his sins who _makes the convert_, not of his who _becomes converted_.” “Eye _hath_ not _seen_, nor ear _heard_, neither _have entered_ into the heart of man, _the things_ which God hath prepared for them that love him.”–_1 Cor._, ii, 9. A more regular construction would be: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither _hath it_ entered into the heart of man to _conceive_, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” The following example, from Pope, may perhaps be conceded to the poet, as an allowable ellipsis of the words “_a friend_,” after _is_:
“In who obtain defence, or who defend; In him who _is_, or him who _finds, a friend_.” –_Essay on Man_, Ep. iv, l. 60.
Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, “There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices _both of the_ nominative and objective case.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 73. He should have said–“_of both the_ nominative and _the_ objective case.” Dr. Webster, citing the line, “In him who is, and him who finds, a friend,” adds, “Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but _without reason_, as the cases are not distinguished in English.”–_Improved Gram._, p. 175.
OBS. 7.–In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned _the subject_ of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule–or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative. This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb. Example: “_[Greek: Eipen auton phonaethaenai]_.”–_Mark_, x, 49. “Ait illum vocari.”–_Leusden_. “Jussit eum vocari.”–_Beza_. “Praecepit illum vocari.”–_Vulgate_. “He commanded him to be called.”–_English Bible_. “He commanded that he should be called.”–_Milnes’s Gr. Gram._, p. 143. “Il dit qu’on l’appelat.”–_French Bible_. “He bid that somebody should call him.” “Il commanda qu’on le fit venir.”–_Nouveau Test._, Paris, 1812. “He commanded that they should _make him come_;” that is, “_lead him_, or _bring him_.” “Il commanda qu’on l’appelat.”–_De Sacy’s N. Test_.
OBS. 8.–In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition. Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. “_Gaudeo te val=ere_,” “I am glad that thou art well,” cannot be translated more literally; because, “I am glad thee to be well,” would not be good English. “_Aiunt regem advent=are_,” “They say the king is coming,” may be otherwise rendered “They _declare_ the king to be coming;” but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of _aiunt, say_, into such a verb as will govern the noun.
OBS. 9.–The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: “But experience teacheth us, _both these opinions to be_ alike ridiculous.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, “But experience _teaches us, that both these opinions are_ alike ridiculous.” The verbs _believe, think, imagine_, and others expressing _mental action_, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: “RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] ‘I _believe_ your _brother to be_ a good man.’ Here _believe_ does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. _Brother_, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb _to be_, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular.”–_S. Barrett’s Gram._, p. 135. This author teaches that, “The _infinitive mode agrees_ with the objective case in number and person.”–_Ibid._ Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun _brother_, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb _believe_, and the subject of the neuter infinitive _to be_, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.
OBS. 10.–There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: “The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, ‘Suffer _me_ to depart.'” [340]–_English Parser_, p. 34. “When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as ‘I understood _it_ to be him,’ ‘Suffer _me_ to depart,’ such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, _the subject_ of it. The reason of this is–the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive following, and not governed by the former verb; as, in that instance, it _would be governing_ two objects.”–_Ib., Note._[341]
OBS. 11.–The notion that one verb governs an other in the infinitive, just as a transitive verb governs a noun, and so that it cannot also govern an objective case, is not only contradictory to my scheme of parsing the infinitive mood, but is also false in itself, and repugnant to the principles of General Grammar. In Greek and Latin, it is certainly no uncommon thing for a verb to govern two cases at once; and even the accusative before the infinitive is sometimes governed by the preceding verb, as the objective before the infinitive naturally is in English. But, in regard to construction, every language differs more or less from every other; hence each must have its own syntax, and abide by its own rules. In regard to the point here in question, the reader may compare the following examples: “[Greek: Echo anagkaen exelthein].”–_Luke_, xiv, 18. “Habeo necesse exire.”–_Leusden_. English: “I have _occasion to go_ away.” Again: “[Greek: O echon hota akouein, akoueto].”–_Luke_, xiv, 35. “Habens aures audiendi, audiat.”–_Leusden_. “Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat.”–_Beza_. English: “He that hath _ears to hear_, let _him hear_.” But our most frequent use of the infinitive after the objective, is in sentences that must not be similarly constructed in Latin or Greek;[342] as, “And he commanded the _porter to watch_.”–_Mark_, xiii, 34. “And he delivered _Jesus to be crucified_.”–_Mark_, xv, 15. “And they led _him_ out _to crucify him_.”–_Mark_, xv, 20. “We heard _him say_.”–_Mark_, xiv, 58. “That I might make _thee know_.”–_Prov._, xxii, 21.
OBS. 12.–If our language does really admit any thing like the accusative before the infinitive, in the sense of a positive subject at the head of a clause, it is only in some prospective descriptions like the following: “Let certain studies be prescribed to be pursued during the freshman year; _some_ of these to be attended to by the whole class; with regard to others, a _choice_ to be allowed; _which_, when made by the student, (the parent or guardian sanctioning it,) to be binding during the freshman year: the same _plan_ to be adopted with regard to the studies of the succeeding years.”–GALLAUDET: _Journal of the N. Y. Literary Convention_, p. 118. Here the four words, _some, choice, which_, and _plan_, may appear to a Latinist to be so many objectives, or accusatives, placed before infinitives, and used to describe that state of things which the author would promote. If objectives they are, we may still suppose them to be governed by _let, would have_, or something of the kind, understood: as, “_Let_ some of these be attended to;” or, “Some of these _I would have_ to be attended to,” &c. The relative _which_ might with more propriety be made nominative, by changing “_to_ be binding” to “_shall_ be binding;” and as to the rest, it is very doubtful whether they are not now nominatives, rather than objectives. The infinitive, as used above, is a mere substitute for the Latin future participle; and any English noun or pronoun put absolute with a participle, is in the nominative case. English relatives are rarely, if ever, put absolute in this manner: and this may be the reason why the construction of _which_, in the sentence above, seems awkward. Besides, it is certain that the other pronouns are sometimes put absolute with the infinitive; and that, in the nominative case, not the objective: as,
“And _I to be_ a corporal in his field, And wear his colours like a tumbler’s hoop! What? _I! I love! I sue! I seek_ a wife!”–_Shak., Love’s Labour Lost_.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE II.
THE SUBJECT OF A FINITE VERB.
“The whole need not a physician, but them that are sick.”–_Bunyan’s Law and Gr._, p. iv.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the objective pronoun _them_ is here made the subject of the verb _need_, understood. But, according to Rule 2d, “A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.” Therefore, _them_ should be _they_; thus, “The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.”]
“He will in no wise cast out whomsoever cometh unto him.”–_Robert Hall_ “He feared the enemy might fall upon his men, whom he saw were off their guard.”–_Hutchinson’s Massachusetts_, ii, 133. “Whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”–_Dymond’s Essays_, p. 48. “The idea’s of the author have been conversant with the faults of other writers.”–_Swift’s T. T._, p. 55. “You are a much greater loser than me by his death.”–_Swift to Pope_, l. 63. “Such peccadillo’s pass with him for pious frauds.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. iii, p. 279. “In whom I am nearly concerned, and whom I know would be very apt to justify my whole procedure.”–_Ib._, i, 560. “Do not think such a man as me contemptible for my garb.”–_Addison._ “His wealth and him bid adieu to each other.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 107. “So that, ‘He is greater than _me_,’ will be more grammatical than, ‘He is greater than _I_.'”–_Ib._, p. 106. “The Jesuits had more interests at court than him.”–SMOLLETT: in _Pr. Gram._, p. 106.[343] “Tell the Cardinal that I understand poetry better than him.”–_Id., ib._ “An inhabitant of Crim Tartary was far more happy than him.”–_Id., ib._ “My father and him have been very intimate since.”–_Fair American_, ii, 53. “Who was the agent, and whom the object struck or kissed?”–_Infant School Gram._, p. 32. “To find the person whom he imagined was concealed there.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 225. “He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him.”–HUME: in _Pr. Gram._, p. 104. “They would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might exercise the right of judgement.”–_Gov. Haynes’s Speech_, in 1832. “They had promised to accept whomsoever should be born in Wales.”–_Stories by Croker_. “We sorrow not as them that have no hope.”–_Maturin’s Sermons_, p. 27. “If he suffers, he suffers as them that have no hope.”–_Ib._, p. 32. “We acknowledge that he, and him only, hath been our peacemaker.”–_Gratton_. “And what can be better than him that made it?”–_Jenks’s Prayers_, p. 329. “None of his school-fellows is more beloved than him.”–_Cooper’s Gram._, p. 42. “Solomon, who was wiser than them all.”–_Watson’s Apology_, p. 76. “Those whom the Jews thought were the last to be saved, first entered the kingdom of God.”–_Eleventh Hour, Tract_, No. 4. “A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool’s wrath is heavier than them both.”–_Prov._, xxvii, 3. “A man of business, in good company, is hardly more insupportable than her they call a notable woman.”–_Steele, Sped_. “The king of the Sarmatians, whom we may imagine was no small prince, restored him a hundred thousand Roman prisoners.”–_Life of Antoninus_, p. 83. “Such notions would be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as them.”–_Bolingbroke’s Ph. Tr._, p. 24. “Unless, as I said, Messieurs, you are the masters, and not me.”–BASIL HALL: _Harrison’s E. Lang._, p. 173. “We had drawn up against peaceable travellers, who must have been as glad as us to escape.”–BURNES’S TRAVELS: _ibid._ “Stimulated, in turn, by their approbation, and that of better judges than them, she turned to their literature with redoubled energy.”–QUARTERLY REVIEW: _Life of H. More: ibid._ “I know not whom else are expected.”–SCOTT’S PIRATE: _ibid._ “He is great, but truth is greater than us all.”–_Horace Mann, in Congress_, 1850. “Him I accuse has entered.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, Sec.482: see _Shakspeare’s Coriolanus_, Act V, sc. 5.
“Scotland and thee did each in other live.” –_Dryden’s Po._, Vol. ii, p. 220.
“We are alone; here’s none but thee and I.” –_Shak._, 2 Hen. VI.
“Me rather had, my heart might feel your love, Than my unpleas’d eye see your courtesy.” –_Idem: Joh. Dict._
“Tell me, in sadness, whom is she you love?” –_Id., Romeo and Juliet_, A. I, sc. 1.
“Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire Too high a fame, when him we serve’s away.” –_Shak., Ant. and Cleop._
RULE III.–APPOSITION.
A Noun or a personal Pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case: as, “But it is really _I_, your old _friend and neighbour., Piso_, late a _dweller_ upon the Coelian hill, who am now basking in the warm skies of Palmyra.”–_Zenobia._
“But _he_, our gracious _Master_, kind as just, Knowing our frame, remembers we are dust.”–_Barbauld_.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE III.
OBS. 1–_Apposition_ is that peculiar relation which one noun or pronoun bears to an other, when two or more are placed together in the same case, and used to designate the same person or thing: as, “_Cicero_ the _orator_;”–“The _prophet Joel_;”–“_He_ of Gath, _Goliah_;”–“Which _ye yourselves_ do know;”–“To make _him king_;”–“To give his _life_ a _ransom_ for many;”–“I made the _ground_ my _bed_;”–“_I_, thy _schoolmaster_;”–“_We_ the _People_ of the United States.” This placing-together of nouns and pronouns in the same case, was reckoned by the old grammarians a _figure of syntax_; and from them it received, in their elaborate detail of the grammatical and rhetorical figures, its present name of _apposition_. They reckoned it a species of _ellipsis_, and supplied between the words, the participle _being_, the infinitive _to be_, or some other part of their “_substantive verb_:” as, “Cicero _being_ the orator;”–“To make him _to be_ king;”–“I _who am_ thy schoolmaster.” But the later Latin grammarians have usually placed it among their regular concords; some calling it the first concord, while others make it the last, in the series; and some, with no great regard to consistency, treating it both as a figure and as a regular concord, at the same time.
OBS. 2.–Some English grammarians teach, “that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb _to be_, may be said to be _in apposition_ to each other.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 181; _R. C. Smith’s_, 155; _Fisk’s_, 126; _Ingersoll’s_, 146; _Merchant’s_, 91. But this is entirely repugnant to the doctrine, that apposition is a _figure_; nor is it at all consistent with the original meaning of the word _apposition_; because it assumes that the literal reading, when the supposed ellipsis is supplied, is _apposition_ still. The old distinction, however, between apposition and same cases, is _generally_ preserved in our grammars, and is worthy ever to be so. The rule for _same cases_ applies to all nouns or pronouns that are put after verbs or participles not transitive, and that are made to agree in case with other nouns or pronouns going before, and meaning the same thing. But some teachers who observe this distinction with reference to the neuter verb _be_, and to certain passive verbs of _naming, appointing_, and the like, absurdly break it down in relation to other verbs, neuter or active-intransitive. Thus Nixon: “Nouns in apposition are in the same case; as, ‘_Hortensius_ died a _martyr_;’ ‘_Sydney_ lived the shepherd’s _friend_.'”–_English Parser_, p. 55. It is remarkable that _all_ this author’s examples of “_nominatives in apposition_,” (and he gives eighteen in the exercise,) are precisely of this sort, in which there is really _no apposition at all_.
OBS. 3.–In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the _explanatory term_; because the case of the _principal term_ depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule. In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which _might_ be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation. Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, _William Pitt–Marcus Tullius Cicero_. It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, _Lord Bacon–Sir Isaac Newton_. William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of “_George Washington_,” absurdly take the former word as an _adjective_ belonging to the latter. See _Russell’s Gram._, p. 100; and _Ware’s_, 17. R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names. See his _New Gram._, p. 97. And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, “_John Wickliffe’s influence_,” “_Robert Bruce’s exertions_,” and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives _in apposition_ with the former. See _Nixon’s English Parser_, p. 59. Wm. B. Fowle, in his “True English Grammar,” takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives. According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language. A later writer than any of these says, “The proper noun is _philosophically_ an adjective. Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, _may be parsed as adjectives_, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, _President_ Madison,–_Doctor_ Johnson,–_Mr_. Webster,–_Esq_. Carleton,–_Miss_ Gould,–_Professor_ Ware,–_lake_ Erie,–the _Pacific_ ocean,–_Franklin_ House,–_Union_ street.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 134. I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a _man’s name_ in parsing it. A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately: for example, that wonderful doctor, _Paracelsus_, who called himself, “_Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim_.”–_Univ. Biog. Dict._
OBS. 4.–A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: “Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case.”–_Adam’s Latin Gram._, p. 156. The same has also been applied to our language: “Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case.”–_Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of _pronouns_ seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes “signify” or “denote” the same thing. Thus, “_the city of London_,” means only _the city London_; “_the land of Egypt_,” is only Egypt; and “_the person of Richard_” is _Richard himself_. Dr. Webster defines _apposition_ to be, “The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them.”–_Octavo Dict._ This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, “_Ezra_ the _priest_, the _scribe_ of the law.”–_Ezra_, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, “God hath made that same _Jesus_, whom ye have crucified, both _Lord_ and _Christ_.”–_Acts_, ii, 36. “Who made _me_ a _judge_ or a _divider_ over you.”–_Luke_, xii, 14. Thirdly, the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by _and_, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, “This great _philosopher and statesman_ was bred a printer.” Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by _as_, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, “Yet count _him_ not _as_ an _enemy_, but admonish _him as_ a _brother_.”–_2 Thess._, iii, 15. “So that _he, as God_, sitteth in the temple of God.”–_Ib._, ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by _than_; as, “He left _them_ no more _than_ dead _men_.”–_Law and Grace_, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by _or_; as, “The back of the hedgehog is covered with _prickles, or spines_.”–_Webster’s Dict._
OBS. 5.–To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly _no exceptions_. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,
“From bright’ning fields of ether fair disclos’d, _Child_ of the sun, refulgent _Summer_ comes.”–_Thomson_.
OBS. 6.–The pronouns of the _first_ and _second_ persons are often placed before nouns merely to distinguish their person; as, “_I John_ saw these things.”–_Bible_. “But what is this to _you receivers?_”–_Clarkson’s Essay on Slavery_, p. 108. “His praise, _ye brooks_, attune.”–_Thomson_. In this case of apposition, the words are in general closely united, and either of them may be taken as the explanatory term. The learner will find it easier to parse _the noun_ by rule third; or _both nouns_, if there be two: as, “_I_ thy _father-in-law Jethro_ am come unto thee.”–_Exod._, xviii, 6. There are many other examples, in which it is of no moment, which of the terms we take for the principal; and to all such the rule may be applied literally: as, “Thy _son Benhadad king_ of Syria hath sent me to thee.”–_2 Kings_, viii, 9.
OBS. 7.–When two or more nouns of the _possessive case_ are put in apposition, the possessive termination added to one, denotes the case of both or all; as, “For _Herodias_’ sake, his _brother Philip’s wife_”–_Matt._, xiv, 3; Mark, vi, 17. Here _wife_ is in apposition with _Herodias_’, and _brother_ with _Philip’s_; consequently all these words are reckoned to be in the possessive case. The Greek text, which is better, stands essentially thus: “For the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother.” “For _Jacob_ my _servant’s_ sake, and _Israel_ mine _elect_.”–_Isaiah_, xlv, 4. Here, as _Jacob_ and _Israel_ are only different names for the same person or nation, the four nouns in Italics are, according to the rule, all made possessives by the one sign used; but the construction is not to be commended: it would be better to say, “For _the_ sake _of_ Jacob my servant, and Israel mine elect.” “With _Hyrcanus_ the high _priest’s_ consent.”–_Wood’s Dict., w. Herod_. “I called at _Smith’s_, the _bookseller_; or, at _Smith_ the _bookseller’s_.”– _Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 105. Two words, each having the possessive sign, can never be in apposition one with the other; because that sign has immediate reference to the governing noun expressed or understood after it; and if it be repeated, separate governing nouns will be implied, and the apposition will be destroyed.[344]
OBS. 8.–If the foregoing remark is just, the apposition of two nouns in the possessive case, requires the possessive sign to be added to that noun which immediately precedes the governing word, whether expressed or understood, and positively excludes it from the other. The sign of the case is added, sometimes to the former, and sometimes to the latter noun, but never to both: or, if added to both, the two words are no longer in apposition. Example: “And for that reason they ascribe to him a great part of his _father Nimrod’s_, or _Belus’s_ actions.”–_Rollin’s An. Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 6. Here _father_ and _Nimrod’s_ are in strict apposition; but if _actions_ governs _Belus’s_, the same word is implied to govern _Nimrod’s_, and the two names are not in apposition, though they are in the same case and mean the same person.
OBS. 9.–Dr. Priestley says, “Some would say, ‘I left the parcel at _Mr. Smith’s_, the _bookseller_;’ others, ‘at _Mr. Smith_ the _bookseller’s_;’ and perhaps others, at ‘_Mr. Smith’s_ the _bookseller’s_.’ The last of these forms is most agreeable to the Latin idiom, but the first seems to be more natural in ours; and if the addition consist [_consists_, says Murray,] of two or more words, _the case seems to be very clear_; as, ‘I left the parcel at _Mr. Smith’s_ the _bookseller_ and _stationer_;’ i. e. at Mr. Smith’s, _who is a_ bookseller and stationer.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 70. Here the examples, if rightly pointed, _would all be right_; but the ellipsis supposed, not only destroys the apposition, but converts the explanatory noun into a nominative. And in the phrase, “_at Mr. Smiths, the bookseller’s_,” there is no apposition, except that of _Mr_. with _Smith’s_; for the governing noun _house_ or _store_ is understood as clearly after the one possessive sign as after the other. Churchill imagines that in Murray’s example, “I reside at _Lord Stormont’s_, my old _patron_ and _benefactor_,” the last two nouns are in the nominative after “_who was_” understood; and also erroneously suggests, that their joint apposition with _Stormont’s_ might be secured, by saying, less elegantly, “I reside at Lord _Stormont’s_, my old patron and _benefactor’s_.”– _Churchill’s New Gram._, p. 285. Lindley Murray, who tacitly takes from Priestley all that is quoted above, except the term “_Mr._,” and the notion of an ellipsis of “_who is_,” assumes each of the three forms as an instance of apposition, but pronounces the first only to be “correct and proper.” If, then, the first is elliptical, as Priestley suggests, and the others are ungrammatical, as Murray pretends to prove, we cannot have in reality any such construction as the apposition of two possessives; for the sign of the case cannot possibly be added in more than these three ways. But Murray does not adhere at all to his own decision, as may be seen by his subsequent remarks and examples, on the same page; as, “The _emperor Leopold’s_;”–“_Dionysius_ the _tyrant’s_;”–“For _David_ my _servant’s_ sake;”–“Give me here _John_ the _Baptist’s_ head;”–“_Paul_ the _apostle’s_ advice.” See _Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 176; _Smith’s New Gram._, p. 150; and others.
OBS. 10.–An explanatory noun without the possessive sign, seems sometimes to be put in apposition with a _pronoun of the possessive case_; and, if introduced by the conjunction _as_, it may either precede or follow the pronoun: thus, “I rejoice in _your_ success _as_ an _instructer_.”– _Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 244. “_As_ an _author_, his ‘Adventurer’ is _his_ capital work.”–_Murray’s Sequel_, p. 329.
“Thus shall mankind _his_ guardian care engage, The promised _father_ of a future age.”–_Pope_.
But possibly such examples may be otherwise explained on the principle of ellipsis; as, [_He being_] “the promised _father_,” &c. “As [_he was_] an _author_,” &c. “As [_you are_] an _instructer_.”
OBS. 11.–When a noun or pronoun _is repeated_ for the sake of emphasis, or for the adding of an epithet, the word which is repeated may properly be said to be in apposition with that which is first introduced; or, if not, the repetition itself implies sameness of case: as, “They have forsaken _me_, the _fountain_ of living waters, and hewed them out _cisterns_, broken _cisterns_, that can hold no water.”–_Jer._, ii, 13.
“I find the total of their hopes and fears _Dreams_, empty _dreams_.”–_Cowper’s Task_, p. 71.
OBS. 12.–A noun is sometimes put, as it were, in apposition to a _sentence_; being used (perhaps elliptically) to sum up the whole idea in one emphatic word, or short phrase. But, in such instances, the noun can seldom be said to have any positive relation that may determine its case; and, if alone, it will of course be in the nominative, by reason of its independence. Examples: “He permitted me to consult his library–a _kindness_ which I shall not forget.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 148. “I have offended reputation–a most unnoble _swerving_.”–_Shakspeare_. “I want a hero,–an uncommon _want_.”–_Byron_. “Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself; a _discovery_ which the poet probably never made before.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 280.
“In Christian hearts O for a pagan zeal! A needful, but opprobrious _prayer!_”–_Young_, N. ix, l. 995.
“Great standing _miracle_, that Heav’n assign’d Its only thinking thing this turn of mind.”–_Pope_.
OBS. 13.–A _distributive term_ in the singular number, is frequently construed in apposition with a comprehensive plural; as, “_They_ reap vanity, _every one_ with his neighbour.”–_Bible_. “Go _ye every man_ unto his city.”–_Ibid._ So likewise with two or more singular nouns which are taken conjointly; as, “The _Son and Spirit_ have _each_ his proper office.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 163. And sometimes a _plural_ word is emphatically put after a series of particulars comprehended under it; as, “Ambition, interest, glory, _all_ concurred.”–_Letters on Chivalry_, p. 11. “Royalists, republicans, churchmen, sectaries, courtiers, patriots, _all parties_ concurred in the illusion.”–_Hume’s History_, Vol. viii, p. 73. The foregoing examples are plain, but similar expressions sometimes require care, lest the distributive or collective term be so placed that its construction and meaning may be misapprehended. Examples: “We have _turned every one_ to his own way.”–_Isaiah_, liii, 6. Better: “_We have every one_ turned to his own way.” “For in many things we _offend all_.”–_James_, iii, 2. Better: “For in many things _we all_ offend.” The latter readings doubtless convey the _true sense_ of these texts. To the relation of apposition, it may be proper also to refer the construction of a singular noun taken in a distributive sense and repeated after _by_ to denote order; as, “_They_ went out _one_ by one.”–_Bible_. “Our whole _company, man_ by man, ventured in.”–_Goldsmith_. “To examine a _book, page_ by page; to search a _place, house_ by house.”–_Ward’s Gram._, p. 106. So too, perhaps, when the parts of a thing explain the whole; as,
“But those that sleep, and think not on their sins, Pinch _them, arms, legs, backs, shoulders, sides_, and _shins_.” –_Shak_.
OBS. 14.–To express a reciprocal action or relation, the pronominal adjectives _each other_ and _one an other_ are employed: as, “They love _each other_;”–“They love _one an other_.” The words, separately considered, are singular; but, taken together, they imply plurality; and they can be properly construed only after plurals, or singulars taken conjointly. _Each other_ is usually applied to two persons or things; and _one an other_, to more than two. The impropriety of applying them otherwise, is noticed elsewhere; (see, in Part II, Obs. 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives;) so that we have here to examine only their relations of case. The terms, though reciprocal and closely united, are seldom or never in the same construction. If such expressions be analyzed, _each_ and _one_ will generally appear to be in the nominative case, and _other_ in the objective; as, “They love _each other_;” i. e. _each_ loves _the other_. “They love _one an other_;” i. e. any or every _one_ loves any or every _other_. _Each_ and _one_ (–if the words be taken as cases, and not adjectively–) are properly in agreement or apposition with _they_, and _other_ is governed by the verb. The terms, however, admit of other constructions; as, “Be ye helpers _one_ of an _other_.”–_Bible_. Here _one_ is in apposition with _ye_, and _other_ is governed by _of_. “Ye are _one_ an _other’s_ joy.”–_Ib._ Here _one_ is in apposition with _ye_, and _other’s_ is in the possessive case, being governed by _joy_. “Love will make you _one_ an _other’s_ joy.” Here _one_ is in the objective case, being in apposition with _you_, and _other’s_ is governed as before. “_Men’s_ confidence in _one an other_;”–“_Their_ dependence _one_ upon _an other_.” Here the word _one_ appears to be in apposition with the possessive going before; for it has already been shown, that words standing in that relation _never take the possessive sign_. But if its location after the preposition must make it objective, the whole object is the complex term, “_one an other_.” “Grudge not _one_ against _an other_.”–_James_, v, 9. “Ne vous plaignez point _les uns des autres_.”–_French Bible_. “Ne suspirate _alius_ adversus _alium_.”–_Beza_. “Ne ingemiscite adversus _alii alios.”–Leusden_. “[Greek: Mae stenazete kat hallaelon].”–_Greek New Testament_.
OBS. 15.–The construction of the Latin terms _alius alium, alii alios_, &c., with that of the French _l’un l’autre, l’un de l’autre_, &c., appears, at first view, sufficiently to confirm the doctrine of the preceding observation; but, besides the frequent use, in Latin and Greek, of a reciprocal adverb to express the meaning of one an other or each other, there are, from each of these languages, some analogical arguments for taking the English terms together as compounds. The most common term in Greek for _one an other_, ([Greek: Hallaelon], dat. [Greek: hallaelois, ais, ois], acc. [Greek: hallaelous]: ab [Greek: hallos], _alius_,) is a single derivative word, the case of which is known by its termination; and _each other_ is sometimes expressed in Latin by a compound: as, “Et osculantes se _alterutrum_, fleverunt pariter.”–_Vulgate_. That is: “And kissing _each other_, they wept together.” As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: “And they kissed _one an other_, and wept _one_ with _an other_”–_1 Sam._, xx, 41. _Alter-utrum_ is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like _each-other_; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to parse _each other_ and _one an other_ otherwise than as compounds: as, “He only recommended this, and not the washing of _one another’s_ feet.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. iii, p. 143.
“The Temple late two brother sergeants saw, Who deem’d _each other oracles_ of law.”–_Pope_, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]
OBS. 16.–The _common_ and the _proper_ name of an object are very often associated, and put in apposition; as, “_The river Thames_,”–“_The ship Albion_,”–“_The poet Cowper_”–“_Lake Erie_,”–“_Cape May_”–“_Mount Atlas_.” But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by _of_; as, “The city _of_ New York,”–“The land _of_ Canaan,”–“The island _of_ Cuba,”–“The peninsula _of_ Yucatan.” Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, “That the _city Sepphoris_ should be subordinate to the _city Tiberias_.”–_Life of Josephus_, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition _of_ is at least needless: “The law delighteth herself in the number _of_ twelve; and the number _of_ twelve is much respected in holy writ.”–_Coke, on Juries_. Two or three late grammarians, supposing _of_ always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, “The city _of_ London, the city _of_ New Haven, the month _of_ March, the islands _of_ Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns _of_ Exeter and Dover,” than to say, “King _of_ Solomon, Titus _of_ the Roman Emperor, Paul _of_ the apostle, or, Cicero _of_ the orator.”–See _Barrett’s Gram._, p. 101; _Emmons’s_, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar. Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, “in the city _of_ New Haven.”–_Gram._, p. 19.
OBS. 17.–When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the passive: as, “They named the _child John_;”–“The child was named _John_.”–“They elected _him president_;”–“He was elected _president_.” After the active verb, the acquired name must be parsed by Rule 3d; after the passive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the pronominal adjective _some_, or the noun _men_ understood after it, is the direct object of the verb _gave_, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: “And he gave _some, apostles_; and _some, prophets_; and _some, evangelists_; and _some, pastors_ and _teachers_”–_Ephesians_, iv, 11. That is, “He _bestowed some_ [men] as _apostles_; and _some_ as _prophets_; and _some_ as _evangelists_; and _some_ as _pastors_ and _teachers_.” The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take _some_ to be either a _dative case_, meaning _to some persons_, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with _some_, or _some men_, in what the Latins call the _accusative, case_. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of _as_, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.
OBS. 18.–Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: “The _Franks, a people_ of Germany.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._ “The Kenite _tribe_, the _descendants_ of Hobab.”–_Milman’s Hist. of the Jews_. “But how can _you_ a _soul_, still either hunger or thirst?”–_Lucian’s Dialogues_, p. 14. “Who seized the wife of _me_ his _host_, and fled.”–_Ib._, p. 16.
“Thy gloomy _grandeurs_ (Nature’s most august. Inspiring _aspect_!) claim a grateful verse.”–_Young_, N. ix, l. 566.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE III.
ERRORS OF WORDS IN APPOSITION.
“Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou.”–_Gen._, xxxi, 44.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the pronouns I and thou, of the nominative case, are here put in apposition with the preceding pronoun _us_, which is objective. But, according to Rule 3d, “A noun or a personal pronoun, used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case.” Therefore, _I_ and _thou_ should be _thee_ and _me_; (the first person, in our idiom, being usually put last;) thus, “Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, thee and me.”]
“Now, therefore, come thou, we will make a covenant, thee and me.”–_Variation of Gen._ “The word came not to Esau, the hunter, that stayed not at home; but to Jacob, the plain man, he that dwelt in tents.”–_Wm. Penn_. “Not to every man, but to the man of God, (i. e.) he that is led by the spirit of God.”–_Barclays Works_, i, 266. “For, admitting God to be a creditor, or he to whom the debt should be paid, and Christ he that satisfies or pays it on behalf of man the debtor, this question will arise, whether he paid that debt as God, or man, or both?”–_Wm. Penn._ “This Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly Man, the Emmanuel, God with us, we own and believe in: he whom the high priests raged against,” &c.–_George Fox_. “Christ, and Him crucified, was the Alpha and Omega of all his addresses, the fountain and foundation of his hope and trust.”–_Experience of Paul_, p. 399. “‘Christ and Him crucified’ is the head, and only head, of the church.”–_Denison’s Sermon_. “But if ‘Christ and Him crucified’ are the burden of the ministry, such disastrous results are all avoided.”–_Ib._ “He never let fall the least intimation, that himself, or any other person, whomsoever, was the object of worship.”–_Hannah Adams’s View_, p. 250. “Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”–_1 Tim._, v, 17. “Our Shepherd, him who is styled King of saints, will assuredly give his saints the victory.”–_Sermon_. “It may seem odd to talk of _we subscribers_”–_Fowlers True Eng. Gram._, p. 20. “And they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; for I will pour their wickedness upon them.”–_Jeremiah_, xiv, 16. “Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.”–_Philippians_, ii, 25.
“Amidst the tumult of the routed train, The sons of false Antimachus were slain; He, who for bribes his faithless counsels sold, And voted Helen’s stay for Paris’ gold.” –_Pope, Iliad_, B. xi. l. 161.
“See the vile King his iron sceptre bear– His only praise attends the pious Heir; He, in whose soul the virtues all conspire, The best good son, from the worst wicked sire.” –DR. LOWTH: _Union Poems_, p. 19.
“Then from thy lips poured forth a joyful song To thy Redeemer!–yea, it poured along In most melodious energy of praise,
To God, the Saviour, he of ancient days.” –_Arm Chair_, p. 15.
RULE IV.–POSSESSIVES.
A Noun or a Pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed: as, “_God’s_ mercy prolongs _man’s_ life.”–_Allen_.
“_Theirs_ is the vanity, the learning _thine_; Touched by _thy_ hand, again _Rome’s_ glories shine.”–_Pope_.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV.
OBS. 1.–Though the _ordinary_ syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny. But how many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might be plausibly exhibited in that character. Two of these would concern only the parser; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important. The other involves the approval or reprehension of a great multitude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; _first_, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; _secondly_, the government of the possessive case after _is, was_, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; _thirdly_, the government of the possessive by a participle, as such–that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle.
OBS. 2.–The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, “For _David_ my _servant’s_ sake,”) might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs the one, virtually governs the other. And if the case of any noun or pronoun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third. If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians have differed in the same way before. Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such _perhaps_ is the following: “At Mr. Smith’s [_who is_] the bookseller.”–See _Dr. Priestley’s Gram._, p. 71.
OBS. 3.–In all our Latin grammars, the verb _sum, fui, esse_, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to _signify_ possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, “_Est regis_;”–“It is the king’s.”–“_Hominis est errare_;”–“It is man’s to err.”–“_Pecus est Melibœi_;”–“The flock is Meliboeus’s.” And sometimes, with like import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, “_Ego_ [sum] _dilecto meo, et dilectus meus_ [est] _mihi_.”–_Vulgate_. “I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine.”–_Solomon’s Song_, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from analogy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after _sum_ or _est_, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some _noun understood_; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word _beloved’s_ or _mine_ is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, “There shall nothing die of all that is the _children’s_ of Israel.”–_Exod._, ix, 4. The Latin here is, “Ut nihil omnino pereat ex his _quae pertinent ad_ filios Israel.”–_Vulgate_. That is,–“of all those _which belong to_ the children of Israel.”
“For thou art _Freedom’s_ now–and _Fame’s_, One of the few, the immortal names,
That were not born to die.”–HALLECK: _Marco Bozzaris_.
OBS. 4.–Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an _adjunct_ and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,–that is, with an actual separation from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, “All _mine_ are _thine_, and _thine_ are _mine_.”–_John_, xvii, 10. For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be something more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, “For all things are _yours_; and ye are _Christ’s_; and Christ is _God’s_.”–_1 Cor._, iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (_be_,) _might_ be parsed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose “_theirs_” to be governed by “_vanity_,” and “_thine_” by “_learning_,” these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a _pronoun_ happens to be the nominative; as, “Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, _which are God’s_”–_1 Cor._, vi, 20. Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, “_If ye be Christ’s_, then are ye Abraham’s seed.”–_Gal._, iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning to be, “_If ye be Christ’s seed_, or _children_.” But a truer version of the text would be, “If ye _are of Christ_, then are ye Abraham’s seed.”–“Que si vous _etes a Christ_, vous etes done la posterite d’Abraham.”–_French Bible_.
OBS. 5.–Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood _substantively_–that is, to “the _name_ of the thing possessed.” Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a _participle_, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen. Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray’s code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an _article_ before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the _pronoun_ and participle: as, “Much depends on _their observing of_ the rule, and error will be the consequence of _their neglecting of_ it;” in stead of, “_their observing the rule_,” and “_their neglecting it_.” And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the _noun_ and participle; as if the error were still more glaring, to make an active participle govern a possessive _noun_; saying, “We shall perceive this _more clearly_, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, ‘Much depends upon _Tyro’s observing of_ the rule,’ &c.; which is the same as, ‘Much depends on Tyro’s _observance_ of the rule.’ But, as this construction sounds rather _harshly_, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: ‘Much depends on the _rule’s being observed_; and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_? or–‘_on observing the rule_; and–_of neglecting it_.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 193; _Ingersoll’s_, 199; and others.
OBS. 6.–Here it is assumed, that “_their observing the rule_,” or “_Tyro’s observing the rule_,” is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself. The last form offered, “_on observing the rule_,” &c., is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a substitute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient. It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the participle undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent of the action, or the subject of the being or passion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idiom of our language as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray’s seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See _Smith’s New Grammar_, pp. 152 and 162; _Comly’s Gram._, 91 and 108; _Ingersoll’s_, 180 and 199.
OBS. 7.–Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions. The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says: “There is only one other observation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. ‘Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the _rule’s being observed_; and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_. For here _is_ a noun _and_ a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without other noun to govern it: for _being observed_, and _being neglected_, are not nouns: nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition _of_ before the noun or pronoun.'[346] For my part,” continues Campbell, “notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression.”–_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.
OBS. 8.–Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming “one compound noun.” I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case. I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove. In view of the two examples, “Much depends upon the _rule’s being observed_,” and, “Much depends upon _their observing of the rule_,” he says: “Now, although I allow both _the_ modes of expression to be good, I think the first _simpler and better_ than the second.” Then, denying all faults, he proceeds: “Let us consider whether the former be liable to _any objections_, which do not equally affect the latter.” But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lowth, which indeed he sufficiently refutes. Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded. In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in meaning; hence the preference suggested by this critic and others, is absurd. Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer. If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure: as, “Much depends on _an observance_ of the rule.”–“Much depends on _their observance_ of the rule.” Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, _vice versa_: that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other.[347]
OBS. 9.–From Dr. Campbell’s commendation of Lowth, as having “given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,”–that is, between the participial noun and the participle,–it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: “Much will depend on _your pupil’s composing_, but more on _his reading_ frequently.”–_Philos. of Rhet._, p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be “correct and proper.” But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb “_frequently_” qualify the verb “_will depend_” expressed in the sentence? or “_will depend_” understood after _more_? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of “_reading_?” or the action of “_composing_?” or both? or neither? But _composing_ and _reading_, if they are mere _nouns_, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives. Besides, _composing_, as a participle, is commonly _transitive_; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon _of_, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, “Much will depend on your _pupil’s composing of themes_; but more, on _his frequent reading_.” This may not be the author’s meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of “_experiment_;” and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher. But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, “Much will depend on _an author’s using_, but more on _his learning_ frequently.” Yet is it commended as a _model_, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.
OBS. 10.–That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form “_one name_” or “_substantive phrase_,” and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author. For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar it stands thus: “When an _entire clause_ of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case. Thus, instead of saying, _What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train_, i. e. _what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train_, we may say, _What is the meaning of this_ lady’s _holding up her train_; just as we say, _What is the meaning of this lady’s dress_, &c. So we may either say, _I remember_ it being _reckoned a great exploit_; or, perhaps more elegantly, _I remember_ its being _reckoned_, &c.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 69. Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly. Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction. His only note on this point,–a note about the “_horse running to-day_,” and the “_horse’s running_ to-day,”–I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.
OBS. 11.–Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite from L. Murray’s code a paragraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun. “When an _entire clause_ of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as _one name_, or to express one idea or circumstance, the _noun on which it depends_ may be put in the _genitive_ case; thus, _instead_ of saying, ‘What is the reason of this _person dismissing_ his servant so hastily?’ _that is_, ‘What is the reason of this person, _in_ dismissing his servant so hastily?’ we _may_ say, and _perhaps_ ought to say, ‘What is the reason of this _person’s_ dismissing of his servant _so hastily?_’ Just as we say, ‘What is the reason of this person’s _hasty dismission_ of his servant?’ So also, we say, ‘I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;’ or more properly, ‘I remember _its_ being reckoned,’ &c. The following sentence is _correct and proper_: ‘Much will depend on _the pupil’s composing_, but more on _his reading_ frequently.’ It would not be accurate to say, ‘Much will depend on the _pupil composing_.’ &c. We also properly say; ‘This will be the effect _of the pupil’s composing_ frequently;’ instead of, ‘_Of the pupil composing_ frequently.’ The _participle_, in such constructions, _does the office_ of a substantive; and it should therefore have a CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Rule 10th, Note 7; _Ingersoll’s_, p. 180; _Fisk’s_, 108; _R. C. Smith’s_, 152; _Alger’s_, 61; _Merchant’s_, 84. See also _Weld’s Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 150; “Abridged Ed.,” 117.[348]
OBS. 12.–Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or