(what amounts to the same thing) a phrase beginning with a participle, ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and others, is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it among the most puzzling points of grammar. Let it be observed, that what these writers absurdly call “_an entire_ CLAUSE _of a sentence_,” is found on examination to be some _short_ PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, “holding up her train,”–“dismissing his servant so hastily,”–“composing,”–“reading frequently,”–“composing frequently.” And each of these, with an opposite error as great, they will have to be “_one name_,” and to convey but “_one idea_;” supposing that by virtue of this imaginary oneness, it may govern the possessive case, and signify something which a “lady,” or a “person,” or a “pupil,” may consistently _possess_. And then, to be wrong in every thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its adjuncts, “depends, _may be put_ in the _genitive case_;” whereas, such a change is seldom, if ever, admissible, and in our language, no participle _ever can depend_ on any other than the nominative or the objective case. Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the word which governs it. In respect to construction, no terms differ more than a participle which governs the possessive case, and a participle which does not. These different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to be equivalent in meaning; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in them quite different significations. The meaning is sometimes very different, and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible. And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Grammar? In Greek and Latin, a participle may agree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if we regard analogy, that genitive must be Englished, not by the possessive case, but by _of_ and the objective; as, “[Greek: ‘Epei dokim`aen zaeteite tou ‘en ’emoi lalountos Christou.]”–“Quandoquidem experimentum quaeritis in me loquentis Christi.”–_Beza_. “Since ye seek a proof of _Christ speaking_ in me.”–_2 Cor._, xiii, 3. We might here, perhaps, say, “of _Christ’s speaking_ in me,” but is not the other form better? The French version is, “Puisque vous cherchez une preuve _que Christ parle_ par moi;” and this, too, might be imitated in English: “Since ye seek a proof _that Christ speaks_ by me.”
OBS. 13.–As prepositions very naturally govern any of our participles except the simple perfect, it undoubtedly seems agreeable to our idiom not to disturb this government, when we would express the subject or agent of the being, action, or passion, between the preposition and the participle. Hence we find that the doer or the sufferer of the action is usually made its possessor, whenever the sense does not positively demand a different reading. Against this construction there is seldom any objection, if the participle be taken entirely as a noun, so that it may be called a participial noun; as, “Much depends _on their observing of_ the rule.”–_Lowth, Campbell_, and _L. Murray_. On the other hand, the participle after the objective is unobjectionable, if the noun or pronoun be the leading word in sense; as, “It would be idle to profess an apprehension of serious _evil resulting_ in any respect from the utmost _publicity being given_ to its contents.”–_London Eclectic Review_, 1816. “The following is a beautiful instance of the _sound_ of words _corresponding_ to motion.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 333. “We shall discover many _things partaking_ of both those characters.”–_West’s Letters_, p. 182. “To a _person following_ the vulgar mode of omitting the comma.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 365. But, in comparing the different constructions above noticed, writers are frequently puzzled to determine, and frequently too do they err in determining, which word shall be made the adjunct, and which the leading term. Now, wherever there is much doubt which of the two forms ought to be preferred, I think we may well conclude that both are wrong; especially, if there can easily be found for the idea an other expression that is undoubtedly clear and correct. Examples: “These appear to be instances of the present _participle being used_ passively.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 64. “These are examples of the past _participle being applied_ in an active sense.”–_Ib._, 64. “We have some examples of _adverbs being used_ for substantives.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 134; _Murray’s_, 198; _Ingersoll’s_, 206; _Fisk’s_, 140; _Smith’s_, 165. “By a _noun, pronoun_, or _adjective, being prefixed_ to the substantive.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 39; also _Ingersoll’s, Fisk’s, Alger’s, Maltby’s, Merchant’s, Bacon’s_, and others. Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word _being_, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes. Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, “Much depends _on the rule being observed_.”–“Much will depend _on the pupil composing frequently_.” Again: “Cyrus did not wait for the _Babylonians coming_ to attack him.”–_Rollin_, ii, 86. “Cyrus did not wait for the _Babylonians’ coming_ to attack him.” That is–“for _their_ coming,” and not, “for _them_ coming;” but much better than either: “Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians _to come and_ attack him.” Again: “To prevent his _army’s being_ enclosed and hemmed in.”–_Rollin_, ii, 89. “To prevent his _army being_ enclosed and hemmed in.” Both are wrong. Say, “To prevent his _army from being_ enclosed and hemmed in.” Again: “As a sign of _God’s fulfilling_ the promise.”–_Rollin_, ii, 23. “As a sign of _God fulfilling_ the promise.” Both are objectionable. Say, “As a sign _that God would fulfill_ the promise.” Again: “There is affirmative evidence for _Moses’s being_ the author of these books.”–_Bp. Watson’s Apology_, p. 28. “The first argument you produce against _Moses being_ the author of these books.”–_Ib._, p. 29. Both are bad. Say,–“for _Moses as being_ the author,”–“against _Moses as being_ the author,” &c.
OBS. 14.–Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is _actually_ governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are, of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be _better expressed_ in some other way. There are surely none among all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above. Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule. They are all of them _unreal_ or _feigned_ sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the same way, made up badly–made up after some ungrammatical model. If a gentleman could possibly demand a _lady’s meaning_ in such an act as _the holding-up of her train_, he certainly would use none of Priestley’s three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, Sec.481; but would probably say, “Madam, _what do you mean_ by holding up your train?” It was folly for the doctor to ask _an other person_, as if an other could _guess_ her meaning better than he. The text with the possessive is therefore not to be corrected by inserting a hyphen and an _of_, after Murray’s doctrine before cited; as, “What is the meaning of this _lady’s holding-up of_ her train?” Murray did well to reject this example, but as a specimen of English, his own is no better. The question which he asks, ought to have been, “_Why did this person dismiss_ his servant so hastily?” Fisk has it in the following form: “What is the reason of this _person’s dismissing his servant_ so hastily?”–_English Grammar Simplified_, p. 108. This amender of grammars omits the _of_ which Murray and others scrupulously insert to govern the noun _servant_, and boldly avows at once, what their rule implies, that, “Participles are sometimes used both as verbs and as nouns at the same time; as, ‘By the _mind’s changing the object_,’ &c.”–_Ib._, p. 134; so _Emmons’s Gram._, p. 64. But he errs as much as they, and contradicts both himself and them. For one ought rather to say, “By the _mind’s changing of_ the object;” else _changing_, which “does the office of a noun,” has not truly “a correspondent regimen.” Yet _of_ is useless after _dismissing_, unless we take away the _adverb_ by which the participle is prevented from becoming a noun. “Dismissing _of_ his servant so _hastily_,” is in itself an ungrammatical phrase; and nothing but to omit either the preposition, or the two adverbs, can possibly make it right. Without the latter, it may follow the possessive; but without the former, our most approved grammars say it cannot. Some critics, however, object to the _of_, because _the dismissing_ is not _the servant’s_ act; but this, as I shall hereafter show, is no valid objection: they stickle for a false rule.
OBS. 15.–Thus these authors, differing from one an other as they do, and each contradicting himself and some of the rest, are, as it would seem, all wrong in respect to the whole matter at issue. For whether the phrase in question be like Priestley’s, or like Murray’s, or like Fisk’s, it is still, according to the best authorities, unfit to govern the possessive case; because, in stead of being a substantive, it is something more than a participle, and yet they take it substantively. They form this phrase in many different fashions, and yet each man of them pretends that what he approves, is just like the construction of a regular noun: “_Just as we say_, ‘What is the reason of this person’s _hasty dismission of_ his servant.'”–_Murray, Fisk, and others. “Just as we say_, ‘What is the meaning of this lady’s _dress_,’ &c.”–_Priestley_. The meaning of a _lady’s dress_, forsooth! The illustration is worthy of the doctrine taught. “_An entire clause of a sentence_” substantively possessed, is sufficiently like “_the meaning of a lady’s dress, &c._” Cobbett despised _andsoforths_, for their lack of meaning; and I find none in this one, unless it be, “_of tinsel and of fustian_.” This gloss therefore I wholly disapprove, judging the position more tenable, to deny, if we consequently must, that either a phrase or a participle, as such, can consistently govern the possessive case. For whatever word or term gives rise to the direct relation of property, and is rightly made to govern the possessive case, ought in reason to be a _noun_–ought to be the name of some substance, quality, state, action, passion, being, or thing. When therefore other parts of speech assume this relation, they naturally _become nouns_; as, “Against the day of _my burying_.”–_John_, xii, 7. “Till the day of _his showing_ unto Israel.”–_Luke_, i, 80. “By _my own showing_.”–_Cowper, Life_, p. 22. “By a fortune of _my own getting_.”–_Ib._ “Let _your yea_ be yea, and _your nay_ nay.”–_James_, v, 12. “Prate of _my whereabout_.”–_Shah_.
OBS. 16.–The government of possessives by “_entire clauses_” or “_substantive phrases_,” as they are sometimes called, I am persuaded, may best be disposed of, in almost every instance, by charging the construction with impropriety or awkwardness, and substituting for it some better phraseology. For example, our grammars abound with sentences like the following, and call them good English: (1.) “So we may either say, ‘I remember _it being_ reckoned a great exploit;’ or perhaps more elegantly, ‘I remember _its being_ reckoned a great exploit.'”–_Priestley, Murray, and others_. Here both modes are wrong; the latter, especially; because it violates a general rule of syntax, in regard to the case of the noun _exploit_. Say, “I remember _it_ was reckoned a great exploit.” Again: (2.) “We also properly say, ‘This will be the effect of the _pupil’s composing_ frequently.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 179; _and others_. Better, “This will be the effect, _if the pupil compose_ frequently.” But this sentence is _fictitious_, and one may doubt whether good authors can be found who use _compose_ or _composing_ as being intransitive. (3.) “What can be the reason of the _committee’s having delayed_ this business?”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 223. Say, “_Why have the committee_ delayed this business?” (4.) “What can be the cause of the _parliament’s neglecting_ so important a business?”–_Ib._, p. 195. Say, “_Why does the parliament neglect_ so important a business?” (5.) “The time of _William’s making_ the experiment, at length arrived.”–_Ib._, p. 195. Say, “The time _for William to make_ the experiment, at length arrived.” (6.) “I hope this is the last time of _my acting_ so imprudently.”–_Ib._, p. 263. Say, “I hope _I shall never again act_ so imprudently.” (7.) “If I were to give a reason for _their looking so well_, it would be, that they rise early.”–_Ib._, p. 263. Say, “I should attribute _their healthful appearance_ to their early rising.” (8.) “The tutor said, that diligence and application to study were necessary to _our becoming_ good scholars.”–_Cooper’s Gram._, p. 145. Here is an anomaly in the construction of the noun _scholars_. Say, “The tutor said, that _diligent application_ to study was necessary to our _success in learning_.” (9.) “The reason of _his having acted_ in the manner he did, was not fully explained.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 263. This author has a very singular mode of giving “STRENGTH” to weak sentences. The faulty text here was. “The reason why he _acted_ in the manner he did, was not fully explained.”–_Murray’s Exercises_, p. 131. This is much better than the other, but I should choose to say. “The reason of _his conduct_ was not fully explained.” For, surely, the “one idea or circumstance” of his “having acted in the manner in _which_ he did act,” may be quite as forcibly named by the one word _conduct_, as by all this verbiage, this “substantive phrase,” or “entire clause,” of such cumbrous length.
OBS. 17.–The foregoing observations tend to show, that the government of possessives by participles, is in general a construction little to be commended, if at all allowed. I thus narrow down the application of the principle, but do not hereby determine it to be altogether wrong. There are other arguments, both for and against the doctrine, which must be taken into the account, before we can fully decide the question. The double construction which may be given to infinitive verbs; the Greek idiom which allows to such verbs an article before them and an objective after them; the mixed character of the Latin gerund, part noun, part verb; the use or substitution of the participle in English for the gerund in Latin;–all these afford so many reasons by analogy, for allowing that our participle–except it be the perfect–since it participates the properties of a verb and a noun, as well as those of a verb and an adjective, may unite in itself a double construction, and be taken substantively in one relation, and participially in an other. Accordingly some grammarians so define it; and many writers so use it; both parties disregarding the distinction between the participle and the participial noun, and justifying the construction of the former, not only as a proper participle after its noun, and as a gerundive after its preposition; not only as a participial adjective before its noun, and as a participial noun, in the regular syntax of a noun; but also as a mixed term, in the double character of noun and participle at once. Nor are these its only uses; for, after an auxiliary, it is the main verb; and in a few instances, it passes into a preposition, an adverb, or something else. Thus have we from the verb a single derivative, which fairly ranks with about half the different parts of speech, and takes distinct constructions even more numerous; and yet these authors scruple not to make of it a hybridous thing, neither participle nor noun, but constructively both. “But this,” says Lowth, “is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction.”–_Gram._, p. 82. And so say I–as asserting the general principle, and leaving the reader to judge of its exceptions. Because, without this mongrel character, the participle in our language has a multiplicity of uses unparalleled in any other; and because it seldom happens that the idea intended by this double construction may not be otherwise expressed more elegantly. But if it sometimes seem proper that the gerundive participle should be allowed to govern the possessive case, no exception to my rule is needed for the _parsing_ of such possessive; because whatever is invested with such government, whether rightly or wrongly, is assumed as “the name of something possessed.”
OBS. 18.–The reader may have observed, that in the use of participial nouns, the distinction of _voice_ in the participle is sometimes disregarded. Thus, “Against the day of my _burying_,” means, “Against the day of my _being buried._” But in this instance the usual noun _burial_ or _funeral_ would have been better than either: “Against the day of _my burial_.” I. e., “In diem _funerationis meae._”–_Beza_. “In diem _sepulturae meae_.”–_Leusden_. “[Greek: ‘Eis t`aen haemeran tou entaphiasmou mou.]”–_John_, xii, 7. In an other text, this noun is very properly used for the Greek infinitive, and the Latin gerund; as, “_For my burial._”–_Matt._, xxvi, 12. “Ad _funerandum_ me.”–_Beza_. “Ad _sepeliendum_ me.”–_Leusden_. Literally: “_For burying me._” “[Greek: Pros to entaphiasai me.]” Nearly: “_For to have me buried._” Not all that is allowable, is commendable; and if either of the uncompounded terms be found a fit substitute for the compound participial noun, it is better to dispense with the latter, on account of its dissimilarity to other nouns: as, “Which only proceed upon the _question’s being begged._”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. iii, p. 361. Better, “Which only proceed upon _a begging of the question._” “The _king’s having conquered_ in the battle, established his throne.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 128. Better, “The king’s _conquering_ in the battle;” for, in the participial noun, the distinction of _tense_, or of previous _completion_, is as needless as that of voice. “The _fleet’s having sailed_ prevented mutiny.”–_Ib._, p. 78. Better, “The _sailing of the fleet_,”–or, “The _fleet’s sailing_” &c. “The _prince’s being murdered_ excited their pity.”–_Ibid._ Better, “The _prince’s murder_ excited their _indignation_.”
OBS. 19.–In some instances, as it appears, not a little difficulty is experienced by our grammarians, respecting the addition or the omission of the possessive sign, the terminational apostrophic _s_, which in nouns is the ordinary index of the possessive case. Let it be remembered that every possessive is governed, or ought to be governed, by some noun expressed or understood, except such as (without the possessive sign) are put in apposition with others so governed; and for every possessive termination there must be a separate governing word, which, if it is not expressed, is shown by the possessive sign to be understood. The possessive sign itself _may_ and _must_ be omitted in certain cases; but, because it can never be inserted or discarded without suggesting or discarding a governing noun, it is never omitted _by ellipsis_, as Buchanan, Murray, Nixon, and many others, erroneously teach. The four lines of Note 2d below, are sufficient to show, in every instance, when it must be used, and when omitted; but Murray, after as many octavo pages on the point, still leaves it perplexed and undetermined. If a person knows what he means to say, let him express it according to the Note, and he will not fail to use just as many apostrophes and Esses as he ought. How absurd then is that common doctrine of ignorance, which Nixon has gathered from Allen and Murray, his chief oracles! “If _several_ nouns in the _genitive_ case, are immediately connected by a _conjunction_, the apostrophic _s_ is annexed _to the last_, but _understood to the rest_; as, Neither _John_ (i. e. John’s) nor _Eliza’s_ books.”–_English Parser_, p. 115. The author gives fifteen other examples like this, all of them bad English, or at any rate, not adapted to the sense which he intends!
OBS. 20.–The possessive case generally comes _immediately before_ the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, “All _nature’s_ difference keeps all _nature’s_ peace.”–_Pope_. “Lady! be _thine_ (i. e., _thy walk_) the _Christian’s_ walk.”–_Chr. Observer._ “Some of _AEschylus’s_ [plays] and _Euripides’s_ plays are opened in this manner.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 459. And in this order one possessive sometimes governs an other: as, “_Peter’s wife’s mother_;”–“_Paul’s sister’s son_.”–_Bible_. But, to this general principle of arrangement, there are some exceptions: as,
1. When the governing noun has an adjective, this may intervene; as, “_Flora’s_ earliest _smells_.”–_Milton_. “Of _man’s_ first disobedience.”–_Id._ In the following phrase from the Spectator, “Of _Will’s_ last _night’s_ lecture,” it is not very clear, whether _Will’s_ is governed by _night’s_ or by _lecture_; yet it violates a general principle of our grammar, to suppose the latter; because, on this supposition, two possessives, each having the sign, will be governed by one noun.
2. When the possessive is affirmed or denied; as, “The book is _mine_, and not _John’s_.” But here the governing noun _may be supplied_ in its proper place; and, in some such instances, it _must_ be, else a pronoun or the verb will be the only governing word: as, “Ye are _Christ’s_ [disciples, or people]; and Christ is _God’s_” [son].–_St. Paul_. Whether this phraseology is thus elliptical or not, is questionable. See Obs. 4th, in this series.
3. When the case occurs without the sign, either by apposition or by connexion; as, “In her _brother Absalom’s_ house.”–_Bible_. “_David_ and _Jonathan’s_ friendship.”–_Allen_. “_Adam_ and _Eve’s_ morning hymn.”–_Dr. Ash_. “Behold the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, is the _Lord’s_ thy _God_.”–_Deut._,, x, 14. “For _peace_ and _quiet’s_ sake.”–_Cowper_. “To the beginning of _King James_ the _First’s_ reign.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 32.
OBS. 21–The possessive case is in general (though not always) equivalent to the preposition _of_ and _the objective_; as, “_Of_ Judas Iscariot, _Simon’s_ son.”–_John_, xiii, 2. “_To_ Judas Iscariot, the son _of Simon_.”–_Ib._, xiii, 26. On account of this one-sided equivalence, many grammarians erroneously reckon the latter to be a “_genitive case_” as well as the former. But they ought to remember, that the preposition is used more frequently than the possessive, and in a variety of senses that cannot be interpreted by this case; as, “_Of_ some _of_ the books _of_ each _of_ these classes _of_ literature, a catalogue will be given at the end _of_ the work.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 178. Murray calls this a “laborious mode of expression,” and doubtless it might be a little improved by substituting _in_ for the third _of_; but my argument is, that the meaning conveyed cannot be expressed by possessives. The notion that _of_ forms a genitive case, led Priestley to suggest, that our language admits a “_double genitive_;” as, “This book _of_ my _friend’s_.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 71. “It is a discovery _of Sir Isaac Newton’s_.”–_Ib._, p. 72. “This exactness _of his_.”–STERNE: _ib._ The doctrine has since passed into nearly all our grammars; yet is there no double case here, as I shall presently show.
OBS. 22.–Where the governing noun cannot be easily mistaken, it is often omitted by ellipsis: as, “At the alderman’s” [_house_];–“St. Paul’s” [_church_];–“A book of my brother’s” [_books_];–“A subject of the emperor’s” [_subjects_];–“A friend of mine;” i. e., _one of my friends_. “Shall we say that Sacrificing was a pure invention of _Adam’s_, or of _Cain_ or _Abel’s?_”–_Leslie, on Tythes_, p. 93. That is–of Adam’s _inventions_, or of Cain or Abel’s _inventions_. The Rev. David Blair, unable to resolve this phraseology to his own satisfaction, absurdly sets it down among what he calls “ERRONEOUS OR VULGAR PHRASES.” His examples are these: “A poem of Pope’s;”–“A soldier of the king’s;”–“That is a horse of my father’s.”–_Blair’s Practical Gram._, p. 110, 111. He ought to have supplied the plural nouns, _poems, soldiers, horses_. This is the true explanation of all the “double genitives” which our grammarians discover; for when the first noun is _partitive_, it naturally suggests more or other things of the same kind, belonging to this possessor; and when such is not the meaning, this construction is improper. In the following example, the noun _eyes_ is understood after _his_:
“Ev’n _his_, the _warrior’s eyes_, were forced to yield, That saw, without a tear, Pharsalia’s field.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. viii, l. 144.
OBS. 23.–When two or more nouns of the possessive form are in any way connected, they usually refer to things individually different but of the same name; and when such is the meaning, the governing noun, which we always suppress somewhere to avoid tautology, is _understood_ wherever the sign is added without it; as, “A _father’s_ or _mother’s sister_ is an aunt.”–_Dr. Webster_. That is, “A _father’s sister_ or a mother’s sister is an aunt.” “In the same commemorative acts of the senate, _were thy name_, thy _father’s_, thy _brother’s_, and the _emperor’s_.”–_Zenobia_, Vol. i, p. 231.
“From Stiles’s pocket into _Nokes’s_” [pocket]. –_Hudibras_, B. iii, C. iii, l. 715.
“Add _Nature’s, Custom’s, Reason’s_, Passion’s strife.” –_Pope, Brit. Poets_, Vol. vi, p. 383.
It will be observed that in all these examples the governing noun is singular; and, certainly, it must be so, if, with more than one possessive sign, we mean to represent each possessor as having or possessing but one object. If the noun be made plural where it is expressed, it will also be plural where it is implied. It is good English to say, “A _father’s_ or _mother’s sisters_ are aunts;” but the meaning is, “A father’s _sisters_ or a mother’s sisters are aunts.” But a recent school critic teaches differently, thus: “When different things of the same name belong to different possessors, the sign should be annexed to each; as, _Adams’s, Davies’s_, and _Perkins’_ Arithmetics; i. e., _three different books_.”–_Spencer’s Gram._, p. 47. Here the example is fictitious, and has almost as many errors as words. It would be much better English to say, “_Adams’s, Davies’s, and Perkins’s Arithmetic_;” though the objective form with _of_ would, perhaps, be still more agreeable for these peculiar names. Spencer, whose Grammar abounds with useless repetitions, repeats his note elsewhere, with the following illustrations: “E. g. _Olmstead’s_ and _Comstock’s_ Philosophies. _Gould’s Adam’s_ Latin Grammar.”–_Ib._, p. 106. The latter example is no better suited to his text, than “_Peter’s wife’s mother_;” and the former is fit only to mean, “Olmstead’s _Philosophies_ and Comstock’s Philosophies.” To speak of the two books only, say,” Olmstead’s _Philosophy_ and Comstock’s.”
OBS. 24.–The possessive sign is sometimes annexed to that part of a compound name, which is, of itself, in the objective case; as, “At his _father-in-law’s_ residence.” Here, “_At the residence of his father-in-law_,” would be quite as agreeable; and, as for the plural, one would hardly think of saying, “Men’s wedding parties are usually held at their _fathers-in-law’s_ houses.” When the compound is formed with _of_, to prevent a repetition of this particle, the possessive sign is sometimes added as above; and yet the hyphen is not commonly inserted in the phrase, as I think it ought to be. Examples: “The duke of Bridgewater’s canal;”–“The bishop of Landaff’s excellent book;”–“The Lord mayor of London’s authority;”–“The captain of the guard’s house.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 176. “The Bishop of Cambray’s writings on eloquence.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 345. “The bard of Lomond’s lay is done.”–_Queen’s Wake_, p. 99. “For the kingdom of God’s sake.”–_Luke_, xviii, 29. “Of the children of Israel’s half.”–_Numbers_, xxxi, 30. From these examples it would seem, that the possessive sign has a less intimate alliance with the possessive case, than with the governing noun; or, at any rate, a dependence less close than that of the objective noun which here assumes it. And since the two nouns here so intimately joined by _of_, cannot be explained separately as forming two cases, but must be parsed together as _one name_ governed in the usual way, I should either adopt some other phraseology, or write the compound terms with hyphens, thus: “The _Duke-of-Bridgewater’s_ canal;”–“The _Bishop-of-Landaff’s_ excellent book;”–“The _Bard-of- Lomond’s_ lay is done.” But there is commonly some better mode of correcting such phrases. With deference to Murray and others, “_The King of Great Britain’s prerogative_,” [349] is but an untoward way of saying, “_The prerogative of the British King_;” and, “_The Lord mayor of London’s authority_,” may quite as well be written, “_The authority of London’s Lord Mayor_.” Blair, who for brevity robs the _Arch_bishop of half his title, might as well have said, “_Fenelon’s_ writings on eloquence.” “_Propter regnum Dei_,” might have been rendered, “For the kingdom _of God_;”–“For _the sake of_ the kingdom of God;”–or, “For the sake of _God’s_ kingdom.” And in lieu of the other text, we might say, “Of the _Israelites’_ half.”
OBS. 25.–“Little explanatory circumstances,” says Priestley, “are particularly awkward between the _genitive case_, and the word which usually follows it; as, ‘She began to extol the farmer’s, _as she called him_, excellent understanding.’ Harriet Watson, Vol. i, p. 27.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p 174. Murray assumes this remark, and adds respecting the example, “It ought to be, ‘the excellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.’ “–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 175. Intersertions of this kind are as uncommon as they are uncouth. Murray, it seems, found none for his Exercises, but made up a couple to suit his purpose. The following might have answered as well for an other: “Monsieur D’acier observes, that Zeno’s (the Founder of the Sect,) opinion was Fair and Defensible in these Points.”–_Colliers Antoninus_, p. ii.
OBS. 26.–It is so usual a practice in our language, to put the possessive sign always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet, that this ending is liable to be added to any adjunct which can be taken as a part of the former noun or name; as, (1.) “The _court-martial’s_ violent proceedings.” Here the plural would be _courts-martial_; but the possessive sign must be at the end. (2.) “In _Henry the Eighth’s_ time.”–_Walker’s Key, Introd._, p. 11. This phrase can be justified only by supposing the adjective a part of the name. Better, “In the time of Henry the Eighth.” (3.) “And strengthened with a _year or two’s age_.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 6. Here _two’s_ is put for _two years_; and, I think, improperly; because the sign is such as suits the former noun, and not the plural. Better, “And strengthened with _a year’s age or more_.” The word _two_ however is declinable as a noun, and possibly it may be so taken in Locke’s phrase. (4.) “This rule is often infringed, by the _case absolute’s not being properly distinguished_ from certain forms of expression apparently _similar_ to it.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 155; _Fisk’s_, 113; _Ingersoll’s_, 210. Here the possessive sign, being appended to a distinct adjective, and followed by nothing that can be called a noun, is employed as absurdly as it well can be. Say, “This rule is often infringed by an improper use of the nominative absolute;” for this is precisely what these authors mean. (5.) “The participle is distinguished from the adjective by the _former’s expressing the idea of time_, and the _latter’s denoting only a quality_”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 65; _Fisk’s_, 82; _Ingersoll’s_, 45; _Emmons’s_, 64; _Alger’s_, 28. This is liable to nearly the same objections. Say, “The participle differs from an adjective by expressing the idea of time, whereas the adjective denotes only a quality.” (6.) “The relatives _that_ and _as_ differ from _who_ and _which_ in the _former’s not being immediately joined_ to the governing word.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 140. This is still worse, because _former’s_, which is like a singular noun, has here a plural meaning; namely, “in _the former terms’ not being_,” &c. Say–“in _that the former never follow_ the governing word.”
OBS. 27.–The possessive termination is so far from being liable to suppression _by ellipsis_, agreeably to the nonsense of those interpreters who will have it to be “_understood_” wherever the case occurs without it, that on the contrary it is sometimes retained where there is an actual suppression of the noun to which it belongs. This appears to be the case whenever the pronominal adjectives _former_ and _latter_ are inflected, as above. The inflection of these, however, seems to be needless, and may well be reckoned improper. But, in the following line, the adjective elegantly takes the sign; because there is an ellipsis of both nouns; _poor’s_ being put for _poor man’s_, and the governing noun _joys_ being understood after it: “The _rich man’s joys_ increase, the _poor’s decay_.”–_Goldsmith_. So, in the following example, _guilty’s_ is put for _guilty person’s_:
“Yet, wise and righteous ever, scorns to hear The fool’s fond wishes, or the _guilty’s_ prayer.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. v, l. 155.
This is a poetical license; and others of a like nature are sometimes met with. Our poets use the possessive case much more frequently than prose writers, and occasionally inflect words that are altogether invariable in prose; as,
“Eager that last great chance of war he waits, Where _either’s_ fall determines _both their_ fates.” –_Ibid._, B. vi, l. 13.
OBS. 28.–To avoid a concurrence of hissing sounds, the _s_ of the possessive singular is sometimes omitted, and the apostrophe alone retained to mark the case: as, “For _conscience’_ sake.”–_Bible_. “_Moses’_ minister.”–_Ib._ “_Felix’_ room.”–_Ib._ “_Achilles’_ wrath.”–_Pope_. “_Shiraz’_ walls.”–_Collins_. “_Epicurus’_ sty.”–_Beattie_. “_Douglas’_ daughter.”–_Scott_. “For _Douglas’_ sake.”–_Ib._ “To his _mistress’_ eyebrow.”–_Shak_. This is a sort of poetic license, as is suggested in the 16th Observation upon the Cases of Nouns, in the Etymology. But in prose the elision should be very sparingly indulged; it is in general less agreeable, as well as less proper, than the regular form. Where is the propriety of saying, _Hicks’ Sermons, Barnes’ Notes, Kames’ Elements, Adams’ Lectures, Josephus’ Works_, while we so uniformly say, in _Charles’s reign, St. James’s Palace_, and the like? The following examples are right: “At Westminster and _Hicks’s Hall_.”–_Hudibras_. “Lord _Kames’s_ Elements of Criticism.”–_Murray’s Sequel_, p. 331. “Of _Rubens’s_ allegorical pictures.”–_Hazlitt_. “With respect to _Burns’s_ early education.”–_Dugald Stewart_. “_Isocrates’s_ pomp;”–“_Demosthenes’s_ life.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 242. “The repose of _Epicurus’s_ gods.”–_Wilson’s Heb. Gram._, p. 93.
“To _Douglas’s_ obscure abode.”–_Scott, L. L._, C. iii, st. 28.
“Such was the _Douglas’s_ command.”–_Id., ib._, C. ii, st. 36.
OBS. 29.–Some of our grammarians, drawing broad conclusions from a few particular examples, falsely teach as follows: “When a singular noun ends in _ss_, the apostrophe only is added; as, ‘For _goodness’_ sake:’ except the word _witness_; as, ‘The _witness’s_ testimony.’ When a noun in the possessive case ends in _ence_, the _s_ is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, ‘For _conscience’_ sake.'”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 49; _Hamlin’s_, 16; _Smith’s New Gram._, 47.[350] Of principles or inferences very much like these, is the whole system of “_Inductive Grammar_” essentially made up. But is it not plain that _heiress’s, abbess’s, peeress’s, countess’s_, and many other words of the same form, are as good English as _witness’s_? Did not Jane West write justly, “She made an attempt to look in at the dear _dutchess’s_?”–_Letters to a Lady_, p. 95. Does not the Bible speak correctly of “_an ass’s head_,” sold at a great price?–_2 Kings_, vi, 25. Is Burns also wrong, about “_miss’s fine lunardi_,” and “_miss’s bonnet?_”–_Poems_, p. 44. Or did Scott write inaccurately, whose guide “Led slowly through the _pass’s_ jaws?”–_Lady of the Lake_, p. 121. So much for the _ss_; nor is the rule for the termination _ence_, or (as Smith has it) _nce_, more true. _Prince’s_ and _dunce’s_ are as good possessives as any; and so are the following:
“That vice should triumph, virtue vice obey; This sprung some doubt of _Providence’s_ sway.”–_Parnell_.
“And sweet _Benevolence’s_ mild command.”–_Lord Lyttleton_.
“I heard the _lance’s_ shivering crash, As when the whirlwind rends the ash.”–_Sir Walter Scott_.
OBS. 30.–The most common rule now in use for the construction of the possessive case, is a shred from the old code of Latin grammar: “One substantive governs _another_, signifying a different thing, _in_ the possessive or genitive case.”–_L. Murray’s Rule X_. This canon not only leaves occasion for an additional one respecting pronouns of the possessive case, but it is also obscure in its phraseology, and too negligent of the various modes in which nouns may come together in English. All nouns used adjectively, and many that are compounded together, seem to form exceptions to it. But who can limit or enumerate these _exceptions?_ Different combinations of nouns have so often little or no difference of meaning, or of relation to each other, and so frequently is the very same vocal expression written variously by our best scholars, and ablest lexicographers, that in many ordinary instances it seems scarcely possible to determine who or what is right. Thus, on the authority of Johnson, one might write, _a stone’s cast_, or _stone’s throw_; but Webster has it, _stones-cast_, or _stones-throw_; Maunder, _stonecast, stonethrow_; Chalmers, _stonescast_; Worcester, _stone’s-cast_. So Johnson and Chalmers write _stonesmickle_, a bird; Webster has it, _stone’s-mickle_; yet, all three refer to Ainsworth as their authority, and his word is _stone-smickle_: Littleton has it _stone-smich_. Johnson and Chalmers write, _popeseye_ and _sheep’s eye_; Walker, Maunder, and Worcester, _popeseye_ and _sheep’s-eye_; Scott has _pope’s-eye_ and _sheepseye_; Webster, _pope’s-eye_ and _sheep’s-eye, bird-eye_, and _birds-eye._ Ainsworth has _goats beard_, for the name of a plant; Johnson, _goatbeard_; Webster, _goat-beard_ and _goats-beard._ Ainsworth has _prince’s feather_, for the amaranth; Johnson, Chalmers, Walker, and Maunder, write it _princes-feather_; Webster and Worcester, _princes’-feather_; Bolles has it _princesfeather_: and here they are all wrong, for the word should be _prince’s-feather._ There are hundreds more of such terms; all as uncertain in their orthography as these.
OBS. 31.–While discrepances like the foregoing abound in our best dictionaries, none of our grammars supply any hints tending to show which of these various forms we ought to prefer. Perhaps the following suggestions, together with the six Rules for the Figure of Words, in Part First, may enable the reader to decide these questions with sufficient accuracy. (1.) Two short radical nouns are apt to unite in a permanent compound, when the former, taking the sole accent, expresses the main purpose or chief characteristic of the thing named by the latter; as, _teacup, sunbeam, daystar, horseman, sheepfold, houndfish, hourglass._ (2.) Temporary compounds of a like nature may be formed with the hyphen, when there remain two accented syllables; as, _castle-wall, bosom-friend, fellow-servant, horse-chestnut, goat-marjoram, marsh-marigold._ (3.) The former of two nouns, if it be not plural, may be taken adjectively, in any relation that differs from apposition and from possession; as, “The _silver_ cup,”–“The _parent_ birds,”–“My _pilgrim_ feet,”–“Thy _hermit_ cell,”–“Two _brother_ sergeants.” (4.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a literal name, may be joined together without either hyphen or apostrophe: as, _tradesman, ratsbane, doomsday, kinswoman, craftsmaster._ (5.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a _metaphorical_ name, should be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, _Job’s-tears, Jew’s-ear, bear’s-foot, colts-tooth, sheep’s-head, crane’s-bill, crab’s-eyes, hound’s-tongue, king’s-spear, lady’s-slipper, lady’s-bedstraw_, &c. (6.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form an adjective, whether literal or metaphorical, should generally be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, “_Neats-foot_ oil,”–“_Calfs-foot_ jelly,”–“A _carp’s-tongue_ drill,”–“A _bird’s-eye_ view,”–“The _states’-rights’_ party,”–“A _camel’s-hair_ shawl.” But a triple compound noun may be formed with one hyphen only: as, “In doomsday-book;” (–_Joh. Dict._;) “An _armsend-lift._” Cardell, who will have all possessives to be adjectives, writes an example thus: “John’s camel’s hair girdle.”–_Elements of Eng. Gram._, p. 39. That is as if John’s camel had a hair girdle! (7.) When the possessive case and its governing noun merely help to form a regular phrase, the compounding of them in any fashion may be reckoned improper; thus the phrases, _a day’s work, at death’s door, on New Year’s Day, a new year’s gift, All Souls’ Day, All Saints’ Day, All Fools’ Day, the saints’ bell, the heart’s blood, for dog’s meat_, though often written otherwise, may best stand as they do here.
OBS. 32.–The existence of a permanent compound of any two words, does not necessarily preclude the use of the possessive relation between the same words. Thus, we may speak of _a horse’s shoe_ or _a goat’s skin_, notwithstanding there are such words as horseshoe and goatskin. E.g., “That preach ye upon the _housetops._”–ALGER’S BIBLE: _Matt._, x, 27. “Unpeg the basket on the _house’s top._”–_Beauties of Shak._, p. 238. Webster defines _frostnail_, (which, under the word _cork_, he erroneously writes _frost nail_,) “A nail driven into a _horse-shoe_, to prevent _the horse_ from slipping on ice.” Worcester has it, “A nail driven into a _horse’s shoe_, to prevent _his slipping on the ice._” Johnson, “A nail with a _prominent head driven_ into the _horse’s shoes_, that it may pierce the ice.” Maunder, “A nail with a _sharp head driven_ into the _horses’ shoes_ in frosty weather.” None of these descriptions is very well written. Say rather, “A _spur-headed_ nail driven into a _horse’s shoe_ to prevent _him from_ slipping.” There is commonly some difference, and sometimes a very great one, between the compound noun and the possessive relation, and also between the radical compound and that of the possessive. Thus a _harelip_ is not a _hare’s lip_, nor is a _headman_ a _headsman_, or _heart-ease heart’s-ease._ So, according to the books, a _cat-head_, a _cat’s-head_, and a _cat’s head_, are three very different things; yet what Webster writes, _cat-tail_, Johnson, _cats-tail_, Walker and others, _cats-tail_, means but the same thing, though not a _cat’s tail._ Johnson’s “_kingspear, Jews-ear, lady-mantle, and lady-bedstraw_,” are no more proper, than Webster’s “_bear’s-wort, lion’s foot, lady’s mantle, and lady’s bed-straw._” All these are wrong.
OBS. 33.–Particular examples, both of proper distinction, and of blind irregularity, under all the heads above suggested, may be quoted and multiplied indefinitely, even from our highest literary authorities; but, since nothing can be settled but by the force of _principles_, he who would be accurate, must resort to rules,–must consider what is analogical, and, in all doubtful cases, give this the preference. But, in grammar, particular analogies are to be respected, as well as those which are more general. For example, the noun _side_, in that relation which should seem to require the preceding noun to be in the possessive case, is usually compounded with it, the hyphen being used where the compound has more than two syllables, but not with two only; as, _bedside, hillside, roadside, wayside, seaside, river-side, water-side, mountain-side._ Some instances of the separate construction occur, but they are rare: as, “And her maidens walked along by the _river’s side._”–_Exodus_, ii, 5. After this noun also, the possessive preposition _of_ is sometimes omitted; as, “On this _side_ the river;”(–_Bible_;) “On this _side_ Trent.”–_Cowell_. Better, “On this _side of_ the river,” &c. “Blind Bartimeus sat by the _highway side_, begging.”–_Mark_, x, 46. Here Alger more properly writes “_highway-side._” In Rev., xiv, 20th, we have the unusual compound, “_horse-bridles._” The text ought to have been rendered, “even unto the _horses’ bridles._” Latin, “usque ad fraenos equorum.” Greek, “[Greek: achri ton chalinon ton hippon].”
OBS. 34.–Correlatives, as father and son, husband and wife, naturally possess each other; hence such combinations as _father’s son_, and _son’s father_, though correct enough in thought, are redundant in expression. The whole and a part are a sort of correlatives, but the whole seems to possess its parts, more properly than any of the parts, the whole. Yet we seldom put the whole in the possessive case before its part, or parts, but rather express the relation by _of_; as, “a quarter _of_ a dollar,” rather than, “a _dollar’s_ quarter.” After the noun _half_, we usually suppress this preposition, if an article intervene; as, “_half a dollar_,” rather than, “half _of_ a dollar,” or “a _dollar’s_ half.” So we may say, “_half the way_,” for “half _of_ the way;” but we cannot say, “_half us_” for “half _of_ us.” In the phrase, “_a half dollar_,” the word _half_ is an adjective, and a very different meaning is conveyed. Yet the compounds _half-pint_ and _half-penny_ are sometimes used to signify, the _quantity_ of _half a pint_, the _value_ of _half a penny_. In weight, measure, or time, the part is sometimes made possessive of the whole; as, “a _pound’s_ weight, a _yard’s_ length, an _hour’s_ time.” On the contrary, we do not say, “_weight’s_ pound, _length’s_ yard, or _time’s_ hour;” nor yet, “a pound _of_ weight, a yard _of_ length;” and rarely do we say, “an hour _of_ time.” _Pound_ and _yard_ having other uses, we sometimes say, “a pound _in_ weight, a yard _in_ length;” though scarcely, “an hour _in_ time.”
OBS. 35.–Between a portion of time and its correlative action, passion, or being, the possessive relation is interchangeable; so that either term may be the principal, and either, the adjunct: as, “_Three years’_ hard work,” or, “Three years _of hard work_.” Sometimes we may even put either term in either form; as, “During the _ten years’_ war,”–“During the ten years _of war_,”–“During the war _of ten years_,”–“During the _war’s_ ten years.” Hence some writers, not perceiving why either word should make the other its governed adjunct, place both upon a par, as if they were in apposition; as, “Three _days time_.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 156. “By a few _years preparation_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 341. “Of forty _years planting_.”–_Wm. Penn_. “An account, of five _years standing_.” If these phrases were correct, it would also be correct to say, “_one day time_,”–“_one year preparation_,”–“_one year planting_,”–“_of one year standing_;” but all these are manifestly bad English; and, by analogy, so are the others.
OBS. 36.–Any noun of weight, measure, or time, put immediately before an other, if it be not in the possessive case, will naturally be understood _adjectively_; as, “No person can, by words only, give to an other an adequate idea of a _pound weight_, or [a] _foot rule_.”–_Gregory’s Dict._ This phraseology can, with propriety, refer only to the weight or the rule with which we weigh or measure; it cannot signify _a pound in weight_, or _a foot in length_, though it is very probable that the author intended the latter. When the noun _times_ is used before an other noun by way of multiplication, there may be supposed an ellipsis of the preposition _of_ between the two, just as when we divide by the word _half_; as, “An hour is sixty _times the length_ of a minute.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 48. “Thirty seconds are _half the length_ of a minute.” That is,–“half _of_ the length,”–“sixty times _of_ the length.”
NOTES TO RULE IV.
NOTE I.–In the syntax of the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word. Thus, write _John’s, men’s, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_; and not, _Johns, mens’, her’s, it’s, our’s, your’s, their’s_.
NOTE II.–When nouns of the possessive case are connected by conjunctions or put in apposition, the sign of possession must always be annexed to such, and such only, as immediately precede the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, “_John_ and _Eliza’s_ teacher is a man of more learning than _James’s_ or _Andrew’s_”–“For _David_ my _servant’s_ sake.”–_Bible_. “For my sake and the _gospel’s_.”–_Ib._ “Lost in _love’s_ and _friendship’s_ smile.”–_Scott_.
NOTE III.–The relation of property may also be expressed by the preposition _of_ and the objective; as, “_The will of man_,” for “_man’s will_.” Of these forms, we should adopt that which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable; and, by the use of both, avoid an unpleasant repetition of either.
NOTE IV.–A noun governing the possessive plural, should not, by a forced agreement, be made plural, when its own sense does not require it; as, “For _our parts_,”–“Were I in _your places_:” for we may with propriety say, “_Our part, your place_, or _your condition_;” as well as, “_Our desire, your intention, their resignation_.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 169. A noun taken figuratively may also be singular, when the literal meaning would require the plural: such expressions as, “_their face_,”–“_their neck_,”–“_their hand_,”–“_their head_,”–“_their heart_,”–“_our mouth_,”–“_our life_,”–are frequent in the Scriptures, and not improper.
NOTE V.–The possessive case should not be needlessly used before a participle that is not taken in other respects as a noun. The following phrase is therefore wrong: “Adopted by the Goths in _their_ pronouncing the Greek.”–_Walker’s Key_, p. 17. Expunge _their_. Again: “Here we speak of _their_ becoming both in form and signification passive.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 226. Say rather, “Here we speak of _them as becoming passive_, both in form and signification.”
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE IV.
EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.–THE POSSESSIVE FORM.
“Mans chief good is an upright mind.” See _Brown’s Institutes of E. Gram._, p. 179.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the noun _mans_, which is intended for the possessive singular of _man_, has _not_ the appropriate form of that case and number. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 4th, “In the syntax ef the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word.” Therefore, _mans_ should be maris, with the apostrophe before the _s_; thus, “_Man’s_ chief good is an upright mind.”]
“The translator of Mallets History has the following note,”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 263. “The act, while it gave five years full pay to the officers, allowed but one year’s pay to the privates.”–_Ib._, p. 184. “For the study of English is preceded by several years attention to Latin and Greek.”–_Ib._, p. 7. “The first, the Court Baron, is the freeholders or freemens court.”–_Coke, Litt._, p. 74. “I affirm, that Vaugelas’ definition labours under an essential defect.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 163. “I affirm, that Vangelas’s definition labours under an essential defect.”–_Murray’s Octavo Gram._, Fourth Amer. Ed., Vol. ii, p. 360.[351] “There is a chorus in Aristophane’s plays.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 480. “It denotes the same perception in my mind as in their’s.”–_Duncan’s Logic_, p. 65. “This afterwards enabled him to read Hicke’s Saxon Grammar.”–_Life of Dr. Murray_, p. 76. “I will not do it for tens sake.”–_Dr. Ash’s Gram._, p. 56. “I arose, and asked if those charming infants were her’s.”–_Werter_, p. 21. “They divide their time between milliners shops and taverns.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, Vol. i, p. 65. “The angels adoring of Adam is also mentioned in the Talmud.”–_Sale’s Koran_, p. 6. “Quarrels arose from the winners insulting of those who lost.”–_Ib._, p. 171. “The vacancy, occasioned by Mr. Adams’ resignation.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, Vol. i, p. vii. “Read for instance Junius’ address, commonly called his letter to the king.”–_Ib._, i, 225. “A perpetual struggle against the tide of Hortensius’ influence.”–_Ib._, ii, 23. “Which, for distinction sake, I shall put down severally.”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 302. “The fifth case is in a clause signifying the matter of ones fear.”–_Ib._, p. 312. “And they took counsel, and bought with them the potters’ field.”–ALGER’S BIBLE: _Matt._, xxvii, 7. “Arise for thy servant’s help, and redeem them for thy mercy’s sake.”–_Jenks’s Prayers_, p. 265. “Shall not their cattle, and their substance, and every beast of their’s be ours?”–SCOTT’S BIBLE: _Gen._, xxxiv, 23. “And every beast of their’s, be our’s?”–FRIENDS’ BIBLE: _ib._ “It’s regular plural, _bullaces_, is used by Bacon.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 213. “Mordecai walked every day before the court of the womens house.”–SCOTT’S BIBLE: _Esther_, ii, 11. “Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in king’s houses.”–IB. and FRIENDS’ BIBLE: _Matt._, xi, 8: also _Webster’s Imp. Gram._, p. 173. “Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, and her two sons; and Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came, with his sons and his wife, unto Moses.”–ALGER’S BIBLE, and THE FRIENDS’: _Exod._, xviii, 2–6. “King James’ translators merely revised former translations.”–_Rev. B. Frazee’s Gram._, p. 137. “May they be like corn on houses tops.”–_White, on the English Verb._, p. 160.
“And for his Maker’s image sake exempt.” –_Par. Lost_, B. xi, l. 514.
“By all the fame acquir’d in ten years war.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. i, l. 674.
“Nor glad vile poets with true critics gore.” –_Pope’s Dunicad_, [sic–KTH] p. 175.
“Man only of a softer mold is made, Not for his fellow’s ruin, but their aid.” –_Dryden’s Poems_, p. 92.
UNDER NOTE II.–POSSESSIVES CONNECTED.
“It was necessary to have both the physician, and the surgeon’s advice.”–_Cooper’s Pl. and Pr. Gram._, p. 140. “This out-side fashionableness of the Taylor on Tire-woman’s making.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 49. “Some pretending to be of Paul’s party, others of Apollos, others of Cephas, and others, pretending yet higher, to be of Christ’s.”–_Woods Dict., w. Apollos_. “Nor is it less certain that Spenser’s and Milton’s spelling agrees better with our pronunciation.”– _Philol. Museum_, i, 661. “Law’s, Edwards’, and Watts’ surveys of the Divine Dispensations.”–_Burgh’s Dignity_, Vol. i, p. 193. “And who was Enoch’s Saviour, and the Prophets?”–_Bayly’s Works_, p. 600. “Without any impediment but his own, or his parents or guardians will.”–_Literary Convention_, p. 145. “James relieves neither the boy[352] nor the girl’s distress.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 116. “John regards neither the master nor the pupil’s advantage.”–_Ib._, p. 117. “You reward neither the man nor the woman’s labours.”–_Ib._ “She examines neither James nor John’s conduct.”– _Ib._ “Thou pitiest neither the servant nor the master’s injuries.”–_Ib._ “We promote England or Ireland’s happiness.”–_Ib._ “Were Cain and Abel’s occupation the same?”–_Brown’s Inst._, p. 179. “Were Cain’s and Abel’s occupations the same?”–_Ib._ “What was Simon’s and Andrew’s employment?”– _Author_. “Till he can read himself Sanctii Minerva with Scioppius and Perizonius’s Notes.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 295.
“And love’s and friendship’s finely–pointed dart Falls blunted from each indurated heart.”–_Goldsmith_.
UNDER NOTE III.–CHOICE OF FORMS.
“But some degree of trouble is all men’s portion.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 218; _Merchant’s_, 197. “With his father’s and mother’s names upon the blank leaf.”–_Corner-Stone_, p. 144. “The general, in the army’s name, published a declaration.”–HUME: in _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 69. “The Commons’ vote.”–_Id, ib._ “The Lords’ house.”–_Id., ib._ “A collection of writers faults.”–SWIFT: _ib._, p. 68. “After ten years wars.”–_Id., ib._ “Professing his detestation of such practices as his predecessors.”–_Notes to the Dunciad_. “By that time I shall have ended my years office.”–_Walker’s Particles_, p. 104. “For Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.”–_Mark_, vi, 17. “For Herodias’s sake, his brother Philip’s wife.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 194. “I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain salvation.”–FRIENDS’ BIBLE: _2 Tim._, ii, 10. “For the elects’ sakes.”–SCOTT’S BIBLE. “For the elect’s sake.”–ALGER’S BIBLE, and BRUCE’S. “He was Louis the Sixteenth’s son’s heir.”–_W. Allen’s Exercises, Gram._, p. 329. “The throne we honour is the choice of the people.”–“An account of the proceedings of the court of Alexander.”–“An excellent tutor of a person of fashion’s child!”–_Gil Bias_, Vol. 1, p. 20. “It is curious enough, that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical!”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 201. “The troops broke into Leopold the emperor’s palace.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 59. “The meeting was called by Eldon the judge’s desire.”–_Ibid._ “Peter’s, John’s, and Andrew’s occupation was that of fishermen.”–_Brace’s Gram._, p. 79. “The venerable president of the Royal Academy’s debility has lately increased.”–_Maunder’s Gram._, p. 12.
UNDER NOTE IV.–NOUNS WITH POSSESSIVES PLURAL.
“God hath not given us our reasons to no purpose.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. i, p. 496. “For our sakes, no doubt, this is written.”–_1 Cor._, ix, 10. “Are not health and strength of body desirable for their own sakes?”–_Hermes_, p. 296; _Murray’s Gram._, 289. “Some sailors who were boiling their dinners upon the shore.”–_Day’s Sandford and Merton_, p. 99. “And they in their turns were subdued by others.”–_Pinnock’s Geography_, p. 12. “Industry on our parts is not superseded by God’s grace.”–_Arrowsmith_. “Their Healths perhaps may be pretty well secur’d.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 51. “Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 211. “It were to be wished, his correctors had been as wise on their parbs.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 60. “The Arabs are commended by the ancients for being most exact to their words, and respectful to their kindred.”–_Sale’s Koran_. “That is, as a reward of some exertion on our parts.”–_Gurney’s Evidences_, p. 86. “So that it went ill with Moses for their sakes.”–_Psalms_, cvi, 32. “All liars shall have their parts in the burning lake.”–_Watts_, p. 33. “For our own sakes as well as for thine.”–_Pref. to Waller’s Poems_, p. 3. “By discover- ing their abilities to detect and amend errors.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. 11, p. iv.
“This world I do renounce; and, in your sights, Shake patiently my great affliction off.”–_Beauties of Shak._, p. 286 “If your relenting angers yield to treat, Pompey and thou, in safety, here may meet.”–_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. iii, l. 500.
UNDER NOTE Y.–POSSESSIVES WITH PARTICIPLES.
“This will encourage him to proceed without his acquiring the prejudice.”–_Smith’s Gram._, p. 5. “And the notice which they give of an action’s being completed or not completed.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 72; _Alger’s_, 30. “Some obstacle or impediment that prevents its taking place.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 38; _Alex. Murray’s_, 37. “They have apostolical authority for their so frequently urging the seeking of the Spirit.”–_The Friend_, Vol. xii, p. 54. “Here then is a wide field for reason’s exerting its powers in relation to the objects of taste.”– _Blair’s Rhet._, p. 18. “Now this they derive altogether from their having a greater capacity of imitation and description.”–_Ib._, p. 51. “This is one clear reason of their paying a greater attention to that construction.” –_Ib._, p. 123. “The dialogue part had also a modulation of its own, which was capable of its being set to notes.”–_Ib._, p. 471. “What is the reason of our being often so frigid and unpersuasive in public discourse?”–_Ib._, p. 334. “Which is only a preparation for his leading his forces directly upon us.”–_Ib._, p. 264. “The nonsense about _which’s_ relating to things only, and having no declension, needs no refutation.”–_Fowle’s True E. Gram._, p. 18. “Who, upon his breaking it open, found nothing but the following inscription.”–_Rollin_, Vol. ii, p. 33. “A prince will quickly have reason to repent his having exalted one person so high.”–_Id._, ii, 116. “Notwithstanding it’s being the immediate subject of his discourse.”– _Churchill’s Gram._, p. 294. “With our definition of its being synonymous with time.”–_Booth’s Introd._, p. 29. “It will considerably increase the danger of our being deceived.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 293. “His beauties can never be mentioned without their suggesting his blemishes also.”– _Blair’s Rhet._, p. 442. “No example has ever been adduced of a man’s conscientiously approving of an action, because of its badness.”–_Gurney’s Evidences_, p. 90. “The last episode of the angel’s shewing Adam the fate of his posterity, is happily imagined.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 452. “And the news came to my son, of his and the bride being in Dublin.”–_Castle Rackrent_, p. 44. “There is no room for the mind’s exerting any great effort.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 32. “One would imagine, that these criticks never so much as heard of Homer’s having written first.”–_Pope’s Preface to Homer_. “Condemn the book, for its not being a geography.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 317. “There will be in many words a transition from their being the figurative to their being the proper signs of certain ideas.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 322. “The doctrine of the Pope’s being the only source of ecclesiastical power.”–_Religious World_, ii, 290. “This has been the more expedient from the work’s being designed for the benefit of private learners.”–_Murray’s Exercises, Introd._, p. v. “This was occasioned by the Grammar’s having been _set up_, and not admitting of enlargement.”–_Ib., Advertisement_, p. ix.
RULE V.–OBJECTIVES.
A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case: as, “I found _her_ assisting _him_”–“Having finished the _work_, I submit _it_.”
“Preventing _fame_, misfortune lends him _wings_, And Pompey’s self his own sad _story_ brings.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. viii, l. 66.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE V.
OBS. 1.–To this rule there are no exceptions; but to the old one adopted by Murray and others, “Active verbs govern the objective case,” there are more than any writer will ever think it worth his while to enumerate. In point of brevity, the latter has the advantage, but in nothing else; for, as a general rule for NOUNS AND PRONOUNS, this old brief assertion is very defective; and, as a rule for “THE SYNTAX OF VERBS,” under which head it has been oftener ranked, it is entirely useless and inapplicable. As there are four different constructions to which the nominative case is liable, so there are four in which the objective may be found; and two of these are common to both; namely, _apposition_, and _sameness of_ case. Every objective is governed by some _verb_ or _participle_, according to Rule 5th, or by some _preposition_, according to Rule 7th; except such as are put in _apposition_ with others, according to Rule 3d, or after an infinitive or a participle _not transitive_, according to Rule 6th: as, “Mistaking _one_ for the _other_, they took _him_, a sturdy _fellow_, called _Red Billy_, to be _me_.” Here is every construction which the objective case can have; except, perhaps, that in which, as an expression of time, place, measure, or manner, it is taken after the fashion of an _adverb_, the governing preposition being suppressed, or, as some say, no governing word being needed. Of this exception, the following quotations may serve for examples: “It holds on by a single button round my neck, _cloak-fashion_”–EDGEWORTH’S _Castle Rackrent_. p. 17. A man quite at leisure to parse all his words, would have said, “_in the fashion of a cloak_.” Again: “He does not care the _rind of a lemon_ for her all the while.”–_Ib._, p. 108. “We turn our eyes _this way or that way_.”–_Webster’s Philos. Gram._, p. 172; _Frazee’s Gram._, 157. Among his instances of “_the objective case restrictive_,” or of the noun “used in the objective, without a governing word,” Dr. Bullions gives this: “Let us go _home_” But, according to the better opinion of Worcester, _home_ is here an _adverb_, and not a noun. See Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.
OBS. 2.–The objective case _generally follows_ the governing word: as, “And Joseph knew his _brethren_, but they knew not him”–_Gen._, xlii, 8. But when it is emphatic, it often precedes the nominative; as, “_Me_ he restored to mine office, and _him_ he hanged.”–_Gen._, xli, 13. “_John_ have I beheaded.”–_Luke_, ix, 9. “But _me_ ye have not always.”–_Matt._, xxvi, 11. “_Him_ walking on a sunny hill he found.”–_Milton_. In poetry, the objective is sometimes placed between the nominative and the verb; as,
“His daring foe securely _him_ defied.”–_Milton_.
“Much he the _place_ admired, the person more.”–_Id._
“The broom its yellow _leaf_ shed.”–_Langhorne_.
If the nominative be a pronoun which cannot be mistaken for an objective, the words may possibly change places; as, “_Silver_ and _gold_ have I none.”–_Acts_, iii, 6. “Created _thing_ nought valued _he_ nor shunn’d.”–_Milton_, B. ii, l. 679. But such a transposition of _two nouns_ can scarcely fail to render the meaning doubtful or obscure; as,
“This _pow’r_ has praise, that virtue scarce can warm, Till fame supplies the universal charm.”–_Dr. Johnson_.
A relative or an interrogative pronoun is commonly placed at the head of its clause, and of course it precedes the verb which governs it; as, “I am Jesus, _whom_ thou persecutest.”–_Acts_, ix, 5. “_Which_ of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?”–_Ib._, vii, 52.
“Before their Clauses plac’d, by settled use, The Relatives these Clauses introduce.”–_Ward’s Gram._, p. 86.
OBS. 3.–Every active-transitive verb or participle has some _noun_ or _pronoun_ for its object, or some _pronominal adjective_ which assumes the relation of the objective case. Though verbs are often followed by the infinitive mood, or a dependent clause, forming a part of the logical predicate; yet these terms, being commonly introduced by a connecting particle, do not form _such an object_ as is contemplated in our definition of a transitive verb. Its government of the _objective_, is the only proper criterion of this sort of verb. If, in the sentence, “Boys _love_ to play,” the former verb is transitive, as several respectable grammarians affirm; why not also in a thousand others; as, “Boys _like_ to play;”–“Boys _delight_ to play;”–“Boys _long_ to play;”–“The boys _seem_ to play;”–“The boys _cease_ to play;”–“The boys _ought_ to play;”–“The boys _go out_ to play;”–“The boys _are gone out_ to play;”–“The boys _are allowed_ to play;” and the like? The construction in all is precisely the same, and the infinitive may follow one kind of verb just as well as an other. How then can the mere addition of this mood make _any_ verb transitive? or where, on such a principle, can the line of distinction for transitive verbs be drawn? The infinitive, _in fact_, is governed by the preposition _to_; and the preceding verb, if it has no other object, is intransitive. It must, however, be confessed that some verbs which thus take the infinitive after them, cannot otherwise be intransitive; as, “A great mind _disdains to hold_ any thing by courtesy.”–_Johnson’s Life of Swift_. “They _require to be distinguished_ by a comma.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 272.
OBS. 4.–A transitive verb, as I have elsewhere shown, may both govern the objective case, and be followed by an infinitive also; as, “_What_ have I _to do_ with thee?”–_John_, ii, 4. This question, as one would naturally take it, implies, “I have _nothing to do_ with thee;” and, by analogy, _what_ is governed by _have_, and not by _do_; so that the latter verb, though not commonly intransitive, appears to be so here. Indeed the infinitive mood is often used without an objective, when every other part of the same verb would require one. Maunder’s rule is, “Transitive verbs and participles govern _either_ the objective case _or_ the infinitive _mode_.”–_Comprehensive Gram._, p. 14. Murray teaches, not only that, “The _infinitive mood_ does the office of a substantive in the objective case; as, ‘Boys love _to play_;'” but that, “The _participle_ with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase _in the objective case_, governed by the preposition or verb; as, ‘He studied to avoid _expressing himself too severely_.'”–See his _Octavo Gram._, pp. 184 and 194. And again: “_Part of a sentence_, as well as a noun or pronoun, may be said to be _in the objective case_, or to be put objectively, _governed_ by the active verb; as, ‘We sometimes see _virtue in distress_, but we should consider _how great will be her ultimate reward_.’ Sentences or phrases under this circumstance, may be termed _objective sentences_ or _phrases_.”–_Ib._, p. 180.
OBS. 5.–If we admit that sentences, parts of sentences, infinitives, participles with their adjuncts, and other phrases, as well as nouns and pronouns, may be _”in the objective case;”_ it will be no easy matter, either to define this case, or to determine what words do, or do not, govern it.[353] The construction of infinitives and participles will be noticed hereafter. But on one of Murray’s examples, I would here observe, that the direct use of the infinitive for an objective noun is a manifest _Grecism_; as, “For to will is present with me; but _to perform_ that which is good, I find not.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 184. That is, “_the performance of_ that which is good, I find not.” Or perhaps we may supply a noun after the verb, and take this text to mean, “But to perform that which is good, I find not _the ability_.” Our Bible has it, “But _how_ to perform that which is good. I find not;” as if _the manner_ in which he might do good, was what the apostle found not: but Murray cites it differently, omitting the word _how_, as we see above. All active verbs to which something is subjoined by _when, where, whence, how_, or _why_, must be accounted intransitive, unless we suppose them to govern such nouns of time, place, degree, manner, or cause, as correspond to these connectives; as, “I _know why_ she blushed.” Here we might supply the noun _reason_, as, “I know the _reason why_ she blushed;” but the word is needless, and I should rather parse _know_ as being intransitive. As for “_virtue in distress_,” if this is an “_objective phrase_,” and not to be analyzed, we have millions of the same sort; but, if one should say, “_Virtue in distress_ excites pity,” the same phrase would demonstrate the absurdity of Murray’s doctrine, because the two nouns here take _two different cases_.
OBS. 6.–The word _that_, which is often employed to introduce a dependent clause, is, by some grammarians, considered as a _pronoun_, representing the clause which follows it; as, “I know _that_ Messias cometh.”–_John_, iv, 25. This text they would explain to mean, “_Messias cometh_, I know _that_;” and their opinion seems to be warranted both by the origin and by the usual import of the particle. But, in conformity to general custom, and to his own views of the practical purposes of grammatical analysis, the author has ranked it with the conjunctions. And he thinks it better, to call those verbs intransitive, which are followed by _that_ and a dependent clause, than to supply the very frequent ellipses which the other explanation supposes. To explain it as a conjunction, connecting an active-transitive verb and its object, as several respectable grammarians do, appears to involve some inconsistency. If _that_ is a conjunction, it connects what precedes and what follows; but a transitive verb should exercise a direct government, without the intervention of a conjunction. On the other hand, the word _that_ has not, in any such sentence, the inherent nature of a pronoun. The transposition above, makes it only a _pronominal adjective_; as, “Messias cometh, I know _that fact_.” And in many instances such a solution is impracticable; as, “The people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, _that_ he should not depart from them.”–_Luke_, iv, 42. Here, to prove _that_ to be a pronoun, the disciples of Tooke and Webster must resort to more than one imaginary ellipsis, and to such inversion as will scarcely leave the sense in sight.
OBS. 7.–In some instances the action of a transitive verb gives to its direct object an additional name, which is also in the objective case, the two words being in apposition; as, “Thy saints proclaim _thee king_.”–_Cowper_. “And God called the _firmament Heaven_.”–_Bible_. “Ordering them to make _themselves masters_ of a certain steep eminence.”–_Rollin_, ii, 67. And, in such a construction, the direct object is sometimes placed before the verb; though the name which results from the action, cannot be so placed: as, “And _Simon_ he surnamed _Peter_.”–_Mark_, iii, 15. “_Him_ that overcometh will I make a _pillar_ in the temple of my God.”–_Rev._, iii, 12. Some grammarians seem not to have considered this phraseology as coming within the rule of apposition. Thus Webster: “We have some verbs which govern two words in the objective case; as,
‘Did I request thee, maker, from my clay To mold _me man_?’–_Milton_, 10, 744.
‘God seems to have made _him what_ he was.’–_Life of Cowper_.”[354]–_Philosophical Gram._, p. 170. _Improved Gram._, p. 120. See also _Weld’s Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 154; “Abridged Ed.,” p. 119; and _Fowler’s E. Gram._, Sec.450. So Murray: “Some of our verbs _appear to govern two words_ in the objective case; as, ‘The Author of my being formed _me man_.’–‘They desired me to call _them brethren_.’–‘He seems to have made _him what_ he was.’ “–_Octavo Gram._, p. 183. Yet this latter writer says, that in the sentence, “They appointed _me executor_,” and others like it,” the verb _to be_ is _understood_.”–_Ib._, p. 182. These then, according to his own showing, are instances of apposition; but I pronounce then such, without either confounding same cases with apposition, or making the latter a species of ellipsis. See Obs. 1st and 2d, under Rule 3d.
OBS. 8.–In
general, if not always, when a verb is followed by two objectives which are neither in apposition nor connected by a conjunction, one of them is governed by a preposition understood; as, “I paid [to] _him_ the _money_”–“They offered [to] _me_ a _seat_”–“He asked [of] _them_ the _question_”–“I yielded, and unlock’d [to] _her_ all my _heart_.”–_Milton_. In expressing such sentences passively, the object of the preposition is sometimes erroneously assumed for the nominative; as, “_He_ was paid _the money_,” in stead of, “The _money_ was paid [to] _him_.”–“_I_ was offered _a seat_,” in stead of, “_A seat_ was offered [to] _me_.” This kind of error is censured by Murray more than once, and yet he himself has, in very many instances, fallen into it. His first criticism on it, is in the following words: “We sometimes meet with such expressions as these: ‘They were asked a question;’ ‘They were offered a pardon;’ ‘He hath been left a great estate by his father.’ In these _phrases_, verbs passive are made to govern the objective case. This license _is not to be approved_. The expressions should be: ‘A question was put to them;’ ‘A pardon was offered to them;’ ‘His father left him a great estate.'”–_L. Murray’s Octavo Gram._, p. 183. See Obs. 12, below.
OBS. 9.–In the Latin syntax, verbs of _asking_ and _teaching_ are said to govern two accusatives; as, “_Posce Deum veniam_, Beg pardon of God.”–_Grant’s Latin Gram._, p. 207. “_Docuit me grammaticam_, He taught me grammar.”–_Grant, Adam, and others_. And again: “When a verb in the active voice governs two cases, in the passive it retains the latter case; as, _Doceor grammaticam_, I am taught grammar.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 177. These writers however suggest, that in reality the _latter_ accusative is governed, not by the verb, but by a preposition understood. “‘_Poscere deos veniam_ is ‘to ask the gods _for_ pardon.'”–_Barnes’s Philological Gram._, p. 116. In general the English idiom _does not coincide_ with what occurs in Latin under these rules. We commonly insert a preposition to govern one or the other of the terms. But we sometimes leave to the verb the objective of the person, and sometimes that of the thing; and after the two verbs _ask_ and _teach_, we sometimes _seem_ to leave both: as, “When thou dost _ask me blessing_, I’ll kneel down, and _ask of thee forgiveness_.”– _Shakspeare_. “In long journeys, _ask_ your _master leave_ to give ale to the horses.”–_Swift_. “And he _asked them of_ their _welfare_.”–_Gen._, xliii, 27. “They _asked of him_ the parable.”–_Mark_, iv, 10. (“_Interrogarunt eum de parabola_.”–_Beza_.) “And asking _them questions_”–_Luke_, ii, 46. “But _teach them_ thy _sons_.”–_Deut._, iv, 9. “_Teach them_ diligently _unto_ thy _children_”–_Ib._, vi, 7. ‘”Ye shall _teach them_ your _children_.”–_Ib._, xi, 19. “Shall any _teach God knowledge_?”–_Job_, xxi, 22. “I will _teach you_ the _fear_ of the Lord.”–_Psal_, xxxiv, 11. “He will _teach us of_ his ways.”–_Isaiah_, ii, 3; _Micah_, iv, 2. “Let him that _is taught in_ the _word_, communicate.”–_Gal._, vi, 6.
OBS. 10.–After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or pronoun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be parsed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction. Consequently I do not admit, that any passive verb can properly govern an objective noun or pronoun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, “Give _him bread_ to eat.”–“Bread shall be given _him_”–_Bible_. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a “preposition understood;” and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, “Give [_to_] truth and virtue the _same arms which_ you give [_to_] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 235. The questionable expression, “_Ask me blessing_,” if interpreted analogically, must mean, “Ask _for_ me _a_ blessing,” which is more correct and explicit; or, if _me_ be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, “Ask _of_ me _a_ blessing,” or, “Ask _my_ blessing.” So, “Ask your _master leave_,” ought rather to be, “Ask _of_ your master leave,” “Ask your master _for_ leave,” or, “Ask your _master’s_ leave.” The example from Mark ought to be, “They asked _him about_ the parable.” Again, the elliptical sentence, “Teach them thy sons,” is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, “Teach them _to_ thy sons.” _To teach_ is to tell things _to_ persons, or to instruct persons _in_ things; _to ask_ is to request or demand things _of_ or _from_ persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons _about_ or _for_ things. These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more analogical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects.
OBS. 11.–Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: “Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, ‘I persuade you _to_ this or _of_ this, ‘_Persuadeo hoc tibi_. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, _Hoc tibi persuadetur_, ‘You are persuaded _of_ this;’ not, _Tu persuaderis_. ‘He trusted me _with_ this affair,’ or ‘He believed me _in_ this,’ _Hoc mihi credidit_.–Passively, _Hoc mihi creditum est_. ‘I told you this,’ _Hoc tibi dixi_. ‘YOU WERE TOLD THIS,’ _Hoc tibi dictum est_; not, _Tu dictus es_.” [No, surely: for, ‘_Tu dictus es_,’ means, ‘You were called,’ or, ‘Thou art reputed;’–and, if followed by any case, it must be the _nominative_.’] “It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, _Hoc tibi dictum est_, means not only ‘This was told _to_ you,’ but ‘YOU WERE TOLD THIS.’ _Liber mihi apatre promissus est_, means both ‘A book was promised (_to_) me by my father,’ and ‘I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.’ _Is primum rogatua est sententiam_, ‘He was first asked _for_ his opinion,’ and ‘An opinion was first asked _of_ him;’ in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice.” See _Grants Latin Gram._, p. 210.
OBS. 12.–Murray’s _second_ censure upon passive government, is this: “The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, _are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated_. ‘The bishops and abbots _were allowed their seats_ in the house of lords.’ ‘Thrasea _was forbidden the presence_ of the emperor.’ ‘He _was shown_ that very _story_ in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: ‘The bishops and abbots were allowed _to have_ (or _to take_) their seats in the house of lords;’ or, ‘Seats in the house of lords were allowed _to_ the bishops and abbots:’ ‘Thrasea was forbidden _to approach_ the presence of the emperor;’ or, ‘The presence of the emperor was forbidden _to_ Thrasea:’ ‘That very story was shown _to_ him in one of his own books.'”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. “For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that–_Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice_.”–_Barnard’s Analytic Gram._, p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: “Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught _me grammar_: His tutor gave _him a lesson_: He promised _me a reward_. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry _was offered a dollar_ by his father to induce him to remain.”–_J. M. Putnam’s Gram._, pp. 110 and 112.
OBS. 13.–The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs–probably a vast majority–govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; _as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care_. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, “He _paid_ my _board_; I _told you so_.” Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, _to name, to mention_. What is there that _cannot be named or mentioned?_ Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, _to transgress a law, or rule_. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or _something_ equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, “He _lived_ a virtuous _life_.”–“Hear, I pray you, this _dream which I have dreamed_”–_Gen._, xxxvii, 6. “I will also command the clouds that they _rain_ no _rain_ upon it.”–_Isaiah_, v, 6.
OBS. 14.–Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, “In the phrases, ‘To dream a dream,’ ‘To live a virtuous life,’ ‘To run a race,’ ‘To walk a horse,’ ‘To dance a child,’ the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active.”–See _Guy’s Gram._, p. 21; _Murray’s_, 180; _Ingersoll’s_, 183; _Fisk’s_, 123; _Smith’s_, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, “No verb is active in _any sense_, or under _any construction_, that will not, in _every sense_, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it.”–_Wright’s Gram._, p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, “An _intransitive_ verb may be used to govern an objective.”–_Gram._, p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as _conceive, think, believe_, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, “I conceived it (_of_ it) in that light.”–_Guy’s Gram._, p. 21. “Did you conceive (of) him to be me?”–_Ib._, p. 28. With this idea, few will probably concur.
OBS. 15.–We sometimes find the pronoun _me_ needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, “It ascends _me_ into the brain; dries _me_ there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours.”–_Shakspeare’s Falstaff_. “Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster _me_ all to their captain, the heart.”–_Id._ This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person; “Fare _you_ well, Falstaff.”–_Shak_. Here _you_ was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb _fare_. “Fare thee well.”–_W. Scott_. “Farewell _to_ thee.”–_Id._ These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, “Fare _thou_ well.” Again: “Turn _thee_ aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay _thee hold_ on one of the young men, and take _thee_ his armour.”–_2 Sam._, ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy _thee_ for _thou_. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs. It ought to be thus: “Turn _thou_ aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and _lay hold_ on one of the young men, and take _to thyself_ his armour.” So of the third person: “The king soon found reason to repent _him_ of his provoking such dangerous enemies.”–HUME: _Murray’s Gram._, Vol. i, p. 180. Here both of the pronouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.
“Good Margaret, _run thee_ into the parlour; There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice.”–SHAK.: _Much Ado_.
NOTES TO RULE V.
NOTE I.–Those verbs or participles which require a regimen, or which signify action that must terminate transitively, should not be used without an object; as, “She _affects_ [kindness,] in order to _ingratiate_ [herself] with you.”–“I _must caution_ [you], at the same time, against a servile imitation of any author whatever.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 192.
NOTE II.–Those verbs and participles which do not admit an object, or which express action that terminates in themselves, or with the doer, should not be used transitively; as, “The planters _grow_ cotton.” Say _raise, produce, or cultivate_. “Dare you speak lightly of the law, or move that, in a criminal trial, judges should advance one step beyond _what_ it permits them _to go_?”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 278. Say,–“beyond _the point to which_ it permits them to go.”
NOTE III.–No transitive verb or participle should assume a government to which its own meaning is not adapted; as, “_Thou_ is a pronoun, a word used _instead_ of a noun–personal, it _personates_ ‘man.'”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 131. Say, “It _represents man_.” “Where _a string_ of such sentences _succeed each other_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 168. Say, “Where _many_ such sentences _come in succession_.”
NOTE IV.–The passive verb should always take for its subject or nominative the direct object of the active-transitive verb from which it is derived; as, (Active,) “They denied me this privilege.” (Passive,) “This _privilege_ was denied _me_;” not, “_I_ was denied this _privilege_:” for _me_ may be governed by _to_ understood, but _privilege_ cannot, nor can any other regimen be found for it.
NOTE V.–Passive verbs should never be made to govern the objective case, because the receiving of an action supposes it to terminate on the subject or nominative.[356] Errors: “Sometimes it _is made use of_ to give a small degree of emphasis.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 197. Say, “Sometimes it _is used_,” &c. “His female characters _have been found fault with_ as insipid.”–_Hazlitt’s Lect._, p. 111. Say,–“have been _censured_;” or,–“have been _blamed, decried, dispraised_, or _condemned_.”
NOTE VI.–The perfect participle, as such, should never be made to govern any objective term; because, without an active auxiliary, its signification is almost always passive: as, “We shall set down the characters _made use of_ to represent all the elementary sounds.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 5; _Fisk’s_, 34. Say,–“the characters _employed_, or _used_.”
NOTE VII.–As the different cases in English are not always distinguished by their form, care must be taken lest their construction be found equivocal, or ambiguous; as, “And we shall always _find our sentences acquire_ more vigour and energy when thus retrenched.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 111. Say, “We shall always find _that_ our sentences acquire more vigour,” &c.; or, “We shall always find our sentences _to_ acquire more vigour and energy when thus retrenched.”
NOTE VIII.–In the language of our Bible, rightly quoted or printed, _ye_ is not found in the objective case, nor _you_ in the nominative; scriptural texts that preserve not this distinction of cases, are consequently to be considered inaccurate.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE V.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–THE OBJECTIVE FORM.
“Who should I meet the other day but my old friend!”–_Spectator_, No. 32.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the pronoun _who_ is in the nominative case, and is used as the object of the active-transitive verb _should meet_. But, according to Rule 5th, “A noun or a pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case.” Therefore, _who_ should be _whom_; thus, “_Whom_ should I meet,” &c.]
“Let not him boast that puts on his armour, but he that takes it off.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 262. “Let none touch it, but they who are clean.”–_Sale’s Koran_, 95. “Let the sea roar, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”–_Psalms_, xcviii, 7. “Pray be private, and careful who you trust.”–_Mrs. Goffe’s Letter_. “How shall the people know who to entrust with their property and their liberties?”– _District School_, p. 301. “The chaplain entreated my comrade and I to dress as well as possible.”–_World Displayed_, i, 163. “He that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.”–_Tract_, No. 3, p. 6. “Who, during this preparation, they constantly and solemnly invoke.”–_Hope of Israel_, p. 84. “Whoever or whatever owes us, is Debtor; whoever or whatever we owe, is Creditor.”–_Marsh’s Book-Keeping_, p. 23. “Declaring the curricle was his, and he should have who he chose in it.”–_Anna Ross_, p. 147. “The fact is, Burke is the only one of all the host of brilliant contemporaries who we can rank as a first-rate orator.”–_The Knickerbocker, May_, 1833. “Thus you see, how naturally the Fribbles and the Daffodils have produced the Messalina’s of our time:”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 53. “They would find in the Roman list both the Scipio’s.”–_Ib._, ii, 76. “He found his wife’s clothes on fire, and she just expiring.”–_New-York Observer_. “To present ye holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 353. “Let the distributer do his duty with simplicity; the superintendent, with diligence; he who performs offices of compassion, with cheerfulness.”–_Stuart’s Romans_, xii, 9. “If the crew rail at the master of the vessel, who will they mind?”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 106. “He having none but them, they having none but hee.”–DRAYTON’S _Polyolbion_.
“Thou, nature, partial nature, I arraign! Of thy caprice maternal I complain!”–_Burns’s Poems_, p. 50. “Nor knows he who it is his arms pursue With eager clasps, but loves he knows not who.”–_Addison’s_, p. 218.
UNDER NOTE I.–OF VERBS TRANSITIVE.
“When it gives that sense, and also connects, it is a conjunction.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 116. “Though thou wilt not acknowledge, thou canst not deny the fact.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 209. “They _specify_, like many other adjectives, and _connect_ sentences.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 114. “The violation of this rule tends so much to perplex and obscure, that it is safer to err by too many short sentences.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 312. “A few _Exercises_ are subjoined to each important definition, for him to _practice_ upon as he proceeds in committing.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, 3d Ed., p. vii. “A verb signifying actively governs the accusative.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 171; _Gould’s_, 172; _Grant’s_, 199; and others. “Or, any word that will _conjugate_, is a verb.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 44. “In these two concluding sentences, the author, hastening to finish, appears to write rather carelessly.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 216. “He simply reasons on one side of the question, and then finishes.”–_Ib._, p. 306. “Praise to God teaches to be humble and lowly ourselves.”–ATTERBURY: _ib._, p. 304. “This author has endeavored to surpass.”–_Green’s Inductive Gram._, p. 54. “Idleness and plezure fateeg az soon az bizziness.”–_Noah Webster’s Essays_, p. 402. “And, in conjugating, you must pay particular attention to the manner in which these signs are applied.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 140. “He said Virginia would have emancipated long ago.”–_The Liberator_, ix, 33. “And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience.”–_2 Cor._, x, 6. “However, in these cases, custom generally determines.”–_Wright’s Gram._, p. 50. “In proof, let the following cases demonstrate.”–_Ib._, p. 46. “We must surprise, that he should so speedily have forgotten his first principles.”–_Ib._, p. 147. “How should we surprise at the expression, ‘This is a _soft_ question!'”–_Ib._, p. 219. “And such as prefer, can parse it as a possessive adjective.”–_Goodenow’s Gram._, p. 89. “To assign all the reasons, that induced to deviate from other grammarians, would lead to a needless prolixity.”–_Alexander’s Gram._, p. 4. “The Indicative mood simply indicates or declares.”–_Farnum’s Gram._, p. 33.
UNDER NOTE II.–OF VERBS INTRANSITIVE.
“In his seventh chapter he expatiateth himself at great length.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 350. “He quarrelleth my bringing some testimonies of antiquity, agreeing with what I say.”–_Ib._, iii, 373. “Repenting him of his design.”–_Hume’s Hist._, ii, 56. “Henry knew, that an excommunication could not fail of operating the most dangerous effects.”–_Ib._, ii, 165. “The popular lords did not fail to enlarge themselves on the subject.”–_Mrs. Macaulay’s Hist._, iii, 177. “He is always master of his subject; and seems to play himself with it.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 445. “But as soon as it comes the length of disease, all his secret infirmities shew themselves.”–_Ib._, p. 256. “No man repented him of his wickedness.”–_Jeremiah_, viii, 6. “Go thee one way or other, either on the right hand, or on the left.”–_Ezekiel_, xxi, 16. “He lies him down by the rivers side.”–_Walker’s Particles_, p. 99. “My desire has been for some years past, to retire myself to some of our American plantations.”–_Cowley’s Pref. to his Poems_, p. vii. “I fear me thou wilt shrink from the payment of it.”–_Zenobia_, i, 76. “We never recur an idea, without acquiring some combination.”–_Rippingham’s Art of Speaking_, p. xxxii.
“Yet more; the stroke of death he must abide, Then lies him meekly down fast by his brethren’s side.”–_Milton_.
UNDER NOTE III.–OF VERBS MISAPPLIED.
“A parliament forfeited all those who had borne arms against the king.”–_Hume’s Hist._, ii, 223. “The practice of forfeiting ships which had been wrecked.”–_Ib._, i, 500. “The nearer his military successes approached him to the throne.”–_Ib._, v, 383. “In the next example, _you_ personifies _ladies_, therefore it is plural.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 103. “The first _its_ personates vale; the second _its_ represents stream.”–_Ib._, p. 103. “Pronouns do not always avoid the repetition of nouns.”–_Ib._, p. 96. “_Very_ is an adverb of comparison, it compares the adjective _good_.”–_Ib._, p. 88. “You will please to commit the following paragraph.”–_Ib._, p. 140. “Even the Greek and Latin passive verbs require an auxiliary to conjugate some of their tenses.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 100. “The deponent verbs, in Latin, require also an auxiliary to conjugate several of their tenses.”–_Ib._, p. 100. “I have no doubt he made as wise and true proverbs, as any body has done since.”–_Ib._, p. 145. “A uniform variety assumes as many set forms as Proteus had shapes.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 72. “When words in apposition follow each other in quick succession.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 57. “Where such sentences frequently succeed each other.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 349. “Wisdom leads us to speak and act what is most proper.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 99; _Murray’s Gram._, i, 303.
“_Jul_. Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague? _Rom_. Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.”–_Shak_.
UNDER NOTE IV.–OF PASSIVE VERBS.
“We too must be allowed the privilege of forming our own laws.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 134. “For we are not only allowed the use of all the ancient poetic feet,” &c.–_Ib._, p. 259; _Kirkham’s Elocution_, 143; _Jamieson’s Rhet._, 310. “By what code of morals am I denied the right and privilege?”–_Dr. Bartlett’s Lect._, p. 4. “The children of Israel have alone been denied the possession of it.”–_Keith’s Evidences_, p. 68. “At York fifteen hundred Jews were refused all quarter.”–_Ib._, p. 73. “He would teach the French language in three lessons, provided he was paid fifty-five dollars in advance.”–_Chazotte’s Essay_, p. 4. “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come.”–_Luke_, xvii, 20. “I have been shown a book.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 392. “John Horne Tooke was refused admission only because he had been in holy orders.”–_Diversions of Purley_, i, 60. “Mr. Horne Tooke having taken orders, he was refused admission to the bar.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 145. “Its reference to place is lost sight of.”–_Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 116. “What striking lesson are we taught by the tenor of this history?”–_Bush’s Questions_, p. 71. “He had been left, by a friend, no less than eighty thousand pounds.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 112. “Where there are many things to be done, each must be allowed its share of time and labour.”–_Johnson’s Pref. to Dict._, p. xiii. “Presenting the subject in a far more practical form than it has been heretofore given.”–_Kirkham’s Phrenology_, p. v. “If a being of entire impartiality should be shown the two companies.”–_Scott’s Pref. to Bible_, p. vii. “He was offered the command of the British army.”–_Grimshaw’s Hist._, p. 81. “Who had been unexpectedly left a considerable sum.”–_Johnson’s Life of Goldsmith_. “Whether a maid or a widow may be granted such a privilege.”–_Spectator_, No. 536. “Happily all these affected terms have been denied the public suffrage.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 199. “Let him next be shewn the parsing table.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. viii. “Thence, he may be shown the use of the Analyzing Table.”–_Ib._, p. ix. “Pittacus was offered a great sum of money.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 228. “He had been allowed more time for study.”–_Ib._, p. 229. “If the walks were a little taken care of that lie between them.”–_Addison’s Spect._, No. 414. “Suppose I am offered an office or a bribe.”–_Pierpont’s Discourse_, Jan. 27, 1839.
“Am I one chaste, one last embrace deny’d? Shall I not lay me by his clay-cold side?” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. ix, l. 103.
UNDER NOTE V.–PASSIVE VERBS TRANSITIVE.
“The preposition _to_ is made use of before nouns of place, when they follow verbs and participles of motion.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 203; _Ingersoll’s_, 231; _Greenlef’s_, 35; _Fisk’s_, 143; _Smith’s_, 170; _Guy’s_, 90; _Fowler’s_, 555. “They were refused entrance into the house.”–_Murray’s Key_, ii, 204. “Their separate signification has been lost sight of.”–_Horne Tooke_, ii, 422. “But, whenever _ye_ is made use of, it must be in the nominative, and never in the objective, case.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 58. “It is said, that more persons than one are paid handsome salaries, for taking care to see acts of parliament properly worded.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 334. “The following Rudiments of English Grammar, have been made use of in the University of Pennsylvania.”–DR. ROGERS: _in Harrison’s Gram._, p. 2. “It never should be lost sight of.”–_Newman’s Rhetoric_, p. 19. “A very curious fact hath been taken notice of by those expert metaphysicians.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 281. “The archbishop interfered that Michelet’s lectures might be put a stop to.”–_The Friend_, ix, 378. “The disturbances in Gottengen have been entirely put an end to.”–_Daily Advertiser_. “Besides those that are taken notice of in these exceptions.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 6. “As one, two, or three auxiliary verbs are made use of.”–_Ib._, p. 24. “The arguments which have been made use of.”–_Addison’s Evidences_, p. 32. “The circumstance is properly taken notice of by the author.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 217. “Patagonia has never been taken possession of by any European nation.”–_Cumming’s Geog._, p. 62. “He will be found fault withal no more, i. e. not hereafter.”–_Walker’s Particles_, p. 226. “The thing was to be put an end to somehow.”–_Leigh Hunt’s Byron_, p. 15. “In 1798, the Papal Territory was taken possession of by the French.”–_Pinnock’s Geog._, p. 223. “The idea has not for a moment been lost sight of by the Board.”–_Common School Journal_, i, 37. “I shall easily be excused the labour of more transcription.”–_Johnson’s Life of Dryden_. “If I may be allowed that expression.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 259, and 288. “If without offence I may be indulged the observation.”–_Ib._, p. 295. “There are other characters, which are frequently made use of in composition.”– _Murray’s Gram._, p. 280; _Ingersoll’s_, 293. “Such unaccountable infirmities might be in many, perhaps in most, cases got the better of.”–_Seattle’s Moral Science_, i, 153. “Which ought never to be had recourse to.”–_Ib._, i, 186. “That the widows may be taken care of.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 499. “Other cavils will yet be taken notice of.”–_Pope’s Pref. to Homer_. “Which implies, that all Christians are offered eternal salvation.”–_West’s Letters_, p. 149. “Yet even the dogs are allowed the crumbs which fall from their master’s table.”–_Campbell’s Gospels, Matt._, xv. 27. “For we say the light within must be taken heed unto.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 148. “This sound of a is taken notice of in Steele’s Grammar.”–_Walker’s Dict._, p. 22. “One came to be paid ten guineas for a pair of silver buckles.”–_Castle Rackrent_, p. 104. “Let him, therefore, be carefully shewn the application of the several questions in the table.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. 8, “After a few times, it is no longer taken notice of by the hearers.”–_Sheridan’s Lect._, p. 182. “It will not admit of the same excuse, nor be allowed the same indulgence, by people of any discernment.”–_Ibid._ “Inanimate things may be made property of.”–_Beanie’s M. Sci._, p. 355.
“And, when he’s bid a liberaller price, Will not be sluggish in the work, nor nice.”–_Butler’s Poems_, p. 162.
UNDER NOTE VI.–OF PERFECT PARTICIPLES.
“All the words made use of to denote spiritual and intellectual things, are in their origin metaphors.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 380. “A reply to an argument commonly made use of by unbelievers.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 293. “It was heretofore the only form made use of in the preter tenses.”–_Dr. Ash’s Gram._, p. 47. “Of the points, and other characters made use of in writing.”–_Ib._, p. xv. “If _thy_ be the personal pronoun made use of.”–_Walker’s Dict._ “The Conjunction is a word made use of to connect sentences.”–_Burn’s Gram._, p. 28. “The points made use of to answer these purposes are the four following.”–_Harrison’s Gram._, p. 67. “_Incense_ signifies perfumes exhaled by fire, and made use of in religious ceremonies.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 171. “In most of his orations, there is too much art; even carried the length of ostentation.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 246. “To illustrate the great truth, so often lost sight of in our times.”–_Common School Journal_, I, 88. “The principal figures, made use of to affect the heart, are Exclamation, Confession, Deprecation, Commination, and Imprecation.”–_Formey’s Belles-Lettres_, p. 133. “Disgusted at the odious artifices made use of by the Judge.”–_Junius_, p. 13. “The whole reasons of our being allotted a condition, out of which so much wickedness and misery would in fact arise.”–_Butler’s Analogy_ p. 109. “Some characteristieal circumstance being generally invented or laid hold of.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 246.
“And _by_ is likewise us’d with Names that shew The Means made use of, or the Method how.”–_Ward’s Gram._, p. 105.
UNDER NOTE VII.–CONSTRUCTIONS AMBIGUOUS.
“Many adverbs admit of degrees of comparison as well as adjectives.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 133. “But the author, who, by the number and reputation of his works, formed our language more than any one, into its present state, is Dryden.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 180. “In some States, Courts of Admiralty have no juries, nor Courts of Chancery at all.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p, 146. “I feel myself grateful to my friend.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 276. “This requires a writer to have, himself, a very clear apprehension of the object he means to present to us.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 94. “Sense has its own harmony, as well as sound.”–_lb._, p. 127. “The apostrophe denotes the omission of an _i_ which was formerly inserted, and made an addition of a syllable to the word.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 67. “There are few, whom I can refer to, with more advantage than Mr. Addison.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 139. “DEATH, in _theology_, [is a] perpetual separation from God, and eternal torments.”–_Webster’s Dict._ “That could inform the _traveler_ as well as the old man himself!”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 345.
UNDER NOTE VIII.–YE AND YOU IN SCRIPTURE.
“Ye daughters of Rabbah, gird ye with sackcloth.”–ALGER’S BIBLE: _Jer._, xlix, 3. “Wash ye, make you clean.”–_Brown’s Concordance, w. Wash_. “Strip ye, and make ye bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.”–ALGER’S BIBLE: _Isaiah_, xxxii, 11. “You are not ashamed that you make yourselves strange to me.”–FRIENDS’ BIBLE: _Job_, xix, 3. “You are not ashamed that ye make yourselves strange to me.”–ALGER’S BIBLE: _ib._ “If you knew the gift of God.”–_Brown’s Concordance, w. Knew_. “Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I know ye not.”–_Penington’s Works_, ii, 122.
RULE VI.–SAME CASES.
A Noun or a Pronoun put after a verb or participle not transitive, agrees in case with a preceding noun or pronoun referring to the same thing: as, “_It_ is _I_.”–“_These_ are _they_.”–“The _child_ was named _John_.”–“_It_ could not be _he_.”–“The _Lord_ sitteth _King_ forever.”–_Psalms_, xxix, 10.
“What war could ravish, commerce could bestow, And _he_ return’d a _friend, who_ came a _foe_.” –_Pope_, Ep. iii, l. 206.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE VI.
OBS. 1.–Active-transitive verbs, and their imperfect and preperfect participles, always govern the objective case; but active-intransitive, passive, and neuter verbs, and their participles, take the same case after as before them, when both words refer to the same thing. The latter are rightly supposed _not to govern_[357] any case; nor are they in general followed by any noun or pronoun. But, because they are not transitive, some of them become connectives to such words as are in the same case and signify the same thing. That is, their finite tenses may be followed by a nominative, and their infinitives and participles by a nominative or an objective, _agreeing_ with a noun or a pronoun which precedes them. The cases are the same, because the person or thing is one; as, “_I_ am _he_.”–“_Thou_ art _Peter_.”–“Civil _government_ being the sole _object_ of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.”–_Jefferson’s Notes_, p. 129. Identity is both the foundation and the characteristic of this construction. We chiefly use it to affirm or deny, to suggest or question, the _sameness_ of things; but sometimes _figuratively_, to illustrate the relations of persons or things by comparison:[358] as, “_I_ am the true _vine_, and my _Father_ is the _husbandman_.”–_John_, xv, 1. “_I_ am the _vine, ye_ are the _branches_.”–_John_, xv, 5. Even the names of direct opposites, are sometimes put in the same case, under this rule; as,
“By such a change thy _darkness_ is made _light_, Thy _chaos order_, and thy _weakness might_.”–_Cowper_, Vol. i, p. 88.
OBS. 2.–In this rule, the terms _after_ and _preceding_ refer rather to the order of the sense and construction, than to the mere _placing_ of the words; for the words in fact admit of various positions. The proper subject of the verb is the nominative _to_ it, or _before_ it, by Rule 2d; and the other nominative, however placed, is understood to be that which comes _after_ it, by Rule 6th. In general, however, the proper subject _precedes_ the verb, and the other word _follows_ it, agreeably to the literal sense of the rule. But when the proper subject is placed after the verb, as in certain instances specified in the second observation under Rule 2d, the explanatory nominative is commonly introduced still later; as, “But be _thou_ an _example_ of the believers.”–_1 Tim_. iv, 12. “But what! is thy _servant_ a _dog_?”–_2 Kings_, viii, 13. “And so would I, were _I Parmenio_.”–_Goldsmith_. “O Conloch’s daughter! is _it thou_?”–_Ossian_. But in the following example, on the contrary, there is a transposition of the entire lines, and the verb agrees with the two nominatives in the latter:
“To thee _were_ solemn _toys_ or empty _show_, The _robes_ of pleasure and the _veils_ of wo.”–_Dr. Johnson_.
OBS. 3.–In interrogative sentences, the terms are usually transposed,[359] or both are placed after the verb; as, “Am _I_ a _Jew_?”–_John_, xviii, 35. “Art _thou_ a _king_ then?”–_Ib._, ver. 37. “_What_ is _truth_?”–_Ib._, ver. 38. “_Who_ art _thou_?”–_Ib._, i, 19. “Art _thou Elias_?”–_Ib._, i, 21. “Tell me, Alciphron, is not _distance_ a _line_ turned endwise to the eye?”–_Berkley’s Dialogues_, p. 161.
“Whence, and _what_ art _thou_, execrable shape?”–_Milton_.
“Art _thou_ that traitor _angel_? art _thou he_?”–_Idem_.
OBS. 4.–In a declarative sentence also, there may be a rhetorical or poetical transposition of one or both of the terms: as, “And I _thy victim_ now remain.”–_Francis’s Horace_, ii, 45. “To thy own dogs a _prey_ thou shalt be made.”–_Pope’s Homer_, “I was eyes to the blind, and _feet_ was _I_ to the lame.”–_Job_, xxix, 15. “Far other _scene_ is _Thrasymene_ now.”–_Byron_. In the following sentence, the latter term is palpably misplaced: “It does not clearly appear at first _what the antecedent is_ to _they_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 218. Say rather: “It does not clearly appear at first, _what is the antecedent_ to [the pronoun] _they_.” In examples transposed like the following, there is an elegant ellipsis of the verb to which the pronoun is nominative; as, _am, art_, &c.
“When pain and anguish wring the brow, A ministering _angel thou_.”–_Scott’s Marmion._
“The forum’s champion, and the people’s chief, Her new-born _Numa thou_–with reign, alas! too brief.”–_Byron_.
“For this commission’d, I forsook the sky– Nay, cease to kneel–thy _fellow-servant I_.”–_Parnell._
OBS. 5.–In some peculiar constructions, both words naturally come _before_ the verb; as, “I know not _who she_ is.”–“_Who_ did you say _it_ was?”–“I know not how to tell thee _who I_ am.”–_Romeo_. “Inquire thou whose _son_ the _stripling_ is.”–_1 Sam._, xvii, 56. “Man would not be the creature _which he_ now is.”–_Blair_. “I could not guess _who it_ should be.”–_Addison_. And they are sometimes placed in this manner by _hyberbaton_ [sic–KTH], or transposition; as, “Yet _he it_ is.”–_Young_. “No contemptible _orator he_ was.”–_Dr. Blair_. “_He it_ is to whom I shall give a sop.”–_John_, xiii, 26. “And a very noble _personage Cato_ is.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 457. “_Clouds they_ are without water.”–_Jude_, 12.
“Of worm or serpent kind _it something_ looked, But monstrous, with a thousand snaky heads.”–_Pollok_, B. i, l. 183.
OBS. 6.–As infinitives and participles have no nominatives of their own, such of them as are not transitive in their nature, may take _different_ cases after them; and, in order to determine what _case_ it is that follows them, the learner must carefully observe what preceding word denotes the same person or thing, and apply the principle of the rule accordingly. This word being often remote, and sometimes understood, the _sense_ is the only clew to the construction. Examples: “_Who_ then can bear the thought of being an _outcast_ from his presence?”–_Addison_. Here _outcast_ agrees with _who_, and not with _thought_. “_I_ cannot help being so passionate an _admirer_ as I am.”–_Steele_. Here _admirer_ agrees with _I_. “To recommend _what_ the soberer part of mankind look upon to be a _trifle_.”–_Steele_. Here _trifle_ agrees with _what_ as relative, the objective governed by _upon_. “_It_ would be a romantic _madness_, for a _man_ to be a _lord_ in his closet.”–_Id._ Here _madness_ is in the nominative case, agreeing with _it_; and _lord_, in the objective, agreeing with _man_. “To _affect_ to be a _lord_ in one’s closet, would be a romantic _madness_.” In this sentence also, _lord_ is in the objective, after _to be_; and _madness_, in the nominative, after _would be._
“‘My dear _Tibullus!_’ If that will not do, Let _me_ be _Horace_, and be _Ovid you_.”–_Pope_, B. ii, Ep. ii, 143.
OBS. 7.–An active-intransitive or a neuter participle in _ing_, when governed by a preposition, is often followed by a noun or a pronoun the case of which depends not on the preposition, but on the case which goes before. Example: “The _Jews_ were in a particular manner ridiculed _for being_ a credulous _people_.”–_Addison’s Evidences_, p. 28. Here _people_ is in the nominative case, agreeing with _Jews_. Again: “The learned pagans ridiculed the _Jews_ for _being_ a credulous _people_.” Here _people_ is in the objective case, because the preceding noun _Jews_ is so. In both instances the preposition _for_ governs the participle _being_, and nothing else. “The atrocious crime of _being_ a young _man_, I shall neither attempt to palliate _or_ deny.”–PITT: _Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 82; _S. S. Greene’s_, 174. Sanborn has this text, with “_nor_” for “_or_.”–_Analytical Gram._, p. 190. This example has been erroneously cited, as one in which the case of the noun after the participle is _not determined_ by its relation to any other word. Sanborn absurdly supposes it to be “in the _nominative independent_.” Bullions as strangely tells us, “it may correctly be called the _objective indefinite_”–like _me_ in the following example: “He was not sure of _its being me_.”–_Bullions’s E. Gram._, p. 82. This latter text I take to be _bad English_. It should be, “He was not sure _of it as being me_;” or, “He was not sure _that it was I.”_ But, in the text above, there is an evident transposition. The syntactical order is this: “_I_ shall neither deny _nor_ attempt to palliate the atrocious crime of being a young _man_.” The words _man_ and _I_ refer to the same person, and are therefore in the same case, according to the rule which I have given above.
OBS. 8.–S. S. Greene, in his late Grammar, improperly denominates this case after the participle _being_, “the _predicate-nominative_,” and imagines that it necessarily remains a nominative even when the possessive case precedes the participle. If he were right in this, there would be an important exception to Rule 6th above. But so singularly absurd is his doctrine about “_abridged predicates_,” that in general the _abridging_ shows an _increase_ of syllables, and often a conversion of good English into bad. For example: “_It_ [the predicate] remains _unchanged in the nominative_, when, with the participle of the copula, _it_ becomes _a verbal noun_, limited by the possessive case of the subject; as, ‘That he was a foreigner prevented his election,’=’_His_ being a _foreigner_ prevented his election.'”–_Greene’s Analysis_, p. 169. Here the number of syllables is unaltered; but _foreigner_ is very improperly called “a verbal noun,” and an example which only lacks a comma, is changed to what Wells rightly calls an “_anomalous expression_,” and one wherein that author supposes _foreigner_ and _his_ to be necessarily in the same case. But Greene varies this example into other “_abridged forms_,” thus: “I knew _that he was a foreigner_,” = “I knew _his being_, or _of his being a foreigner_.” “The fact _that he was a foreigner_, = _of his being a foreigner_, was undeniable.” “_When he was first called a foreigner_, = _on his being first called a foreigner_, his anger was excited.”–_Ib._, p. 171. All these changes _enlarge_, rather than abridge, the expression; and, at the same time, make it questionable English, to say the least of it.
OBS. 9.–In some examples, the adverb _there_ precedes the participle, and we evidently have nothing by which to determine the case that follows; as, “These judges were twelve in number. Was this _owing to there being_ twelve primary _deities_ among the Gothic nations?”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 263. Say rather: “Was this _because there were_ twelve primary deities among the Gothic nations?” “How many are injured by Adam’s fall, that know nothing of _there ever being_ such a man in the world!”–_Barclay’s Apology_, p. 185. Say rather,–“_who know not that there ever was_ such a man in the world!”
OBS. 10.–In some other examples, we find a possessive before the participle, and a doubtful case after it; as, “This our Saviour himself was pleased to make use of as the strongest argument of _his_ being the promised _Messiah_”–_Addison’s Evidences_, p. 81. “But my chief affliction consisted in _my_ being singled out from all the other boys, by a lad about fifteen years of age, as a proper _object_ upon whom he might let loose the cruelty of his temper.”–_Cowper’s Memoir_, p. 13. “[Greek: Tou patros [ontos] onou euthus hypemnaesthae]. He had some sort of recollection of his _father’s_ being an ass”–_Collectanea Graeca Minora, Notae_, p. 7. This construction, though not uncommon, is anomalous in more respects than one. Whether or not it is worthy to form an exception to the rule of _same cases_, or even to that of _possessives_, the reader may judge from the observations made on it under the latter. I should rather devise some way to avoid it, if any can be found–and I believe there can; as, “This our Saviour himself was pleased to _advance_ as the strongest _proof that he was_ the promised Messiah.”–“But my chief affliction consisted in _this, that I was_ singled out,” &c. The story of the mule is, “_He seemed to recollect on a sudden that his father was an ass_.” This is the proper meaning of the Greek text above; but the construction is different, the Greek nouns being genitives in apposition.
OBS. 11.–A noun in the nominative case sometimes follows a finite verb, when the equivalent subject that stands before the verb, is not a noun or pronoun, but a phrase or a sentence which supplies the place of a nominative; as, “That the barons and freeholders derived their authority from kings, is wholly a _mistake_.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 277. “To speak of a slave as a member of civil society, may, by some, be regarded a _solecism_.”–_Stroud’s Sketch_, p. 65. Here _mistake_ and _solecism_ are as plainly nominatives, as if the preceding subjects had been declinable words.
OBS. 12.–When a noun is put after an abstract infinitive that is not transitive, it appears necessarily to be in the objective case,[360] though not governed by the verb; for if we supply any noun to which such infinitive may be supposed to refer, it must be introduced before the verb by the preposition _for_: as, “To be an _Englishman_ in London, a _Frenchman_ in Paris, a _Spaniard_ in Madrid, is no easy matter; and yet it is necessary.”–_Home’s Art of Thinking_, p. 89. That is, “_For a traveller_ to be an _Englishman_ in London,” &c. “It is certainly as easy to be a _scholar_, as a _gamester_.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 425. That is, “It is as easy _for a young man_ to be a _scholar, as it is for him to be a gamester_.” “To be an eloquent _speaker_, in the proper sense of the _word_, is far from being a common or easy _attainment._”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 337. Here _attainment_ is in the nominative, after _is_–or, rather after _being_, for it follows both; and _speaker_, in the objective after _to be_. “It is almost as hard a thing [for a _man_] to be a poet in despite of fortune, as it is [for _one_ to be a _poet_] in despite of nature.”–_Cowley’s Preface to his Poems_, p. vii.
OBS. 13.–Where precision is necessary, loose or abstract infinitives are improper; as, “But _to be precise_, signifies, that _they_ express _that idea_, and _no more_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 94; _Murray’s Gram._, 301; _Jamieson’s Rhet._, 64. Say rather: “But, _for an author’s words to be precise_, signifies, that they express _his exact_ idea, and _nothing_ more _or less_.”
OBS. 14.–The principal verbs that take the same case after as before them, except those which are passive, are the following: to be, to stand, to sit, to lie, to live, to grow, to become, to turn, to commence, to die, to expire, to come, to go, to range, to wander, to return, to seem, to appear, to remain, to continue, to reign. There are doubtless some others, which admit of such a construction; and of some of these, it is to be observed, that they are sometimes transitive, and govern the objective: as, “To _commence_ a suit.”–_Johnson_. “O _continue_ thy loving kindness unto them.”–_Psalms_, xxxvi, 10. “A feather will _turn_ the scale.”–_Shak._ “_Return_ him a trespass offering.”–_1 Samuel_. “For it _becomes_ me so to speak.”–_Dryden_. But their construction with like cases is easily distinguished by the sense; as, “When _I_ commenced _author_, my aim was to amuse.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 286. “_Men_ continue men’s _destroyers_.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 56. “‘Tis most just, that thou turn rascal”–_Shak., Timon of Athens_. “He went out _mate_, but _he_ returned