The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

the words as and are, thus; the crotchets being his, not mine: "as…. is an adverb, connecting the two sentences in comparing them, [It is a fault of some, that they make as a pronoun, when, in a comparative sentence, it corresponds with such, and is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is probably done from an ignorance of the real nominative to the verb. The sentence should stand thus: 'These (perhaps bonnets) are not such (bonnets) as (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.' Then] are …. is the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present tense, and agrees with the noun bonnets, understood."—Chandler's Common School Gram., p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No part of it is accurate. "Are worn," which the critic unwarrantably divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a passive verb, agreeing with the pronoun as. But the text itself is faulty, being unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that may be "worn," there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, "from an ignorance of the real nominative," can only interpret with a "perhaps?" But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of crotchets. Nor is it true, that "the sentence should stand" as above exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of awkwardness, but still makes as a pronoun, a nominative, belonging after are: so that the phrase, "as are worn," is only encumbered and perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by this expounder, in which as is an objective: "He is exactly such a man as I saw."—Chandler's Com. Sch. Gram., p. 163. Here as is the object of saw. But the author says, "The sentence, however, should stand thus: 'He is exactly such a man as that person was whom I saw.'"—Ibid. This inelegant alteration makes as a nominative dependent on was.

OBS. 22.—The use of as for a relative pronoun, is almost entirely confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper; hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to who, which, or that, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because who and which are here employed, where as is certainly now required by all good usage: "It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that there be certain meetings at certain places and times, as may best suit the convenience of such, who may be most particularly concerned in them."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 495. "Which, no doubt, will be found obligatory upon all such, who have a sense and feeling of the mind of the Spirit."—Ib., i, p. 578. "Condemning or removing such things, which in themselves are evil."—Ib., i, p. 511. In these citations, not only are who and which improperly used for as, but the commas before them are also improper, because the relatives are intended to be taken in a restrictive sense. "If there be such that walk disorderly now."—Ib., i, p. 488. Here that ought to be as; or else such ought to be persons, or those. "When such virtues, as which still accompany the truth, are necessarily supposed to be wanting."—Ib., i, p. 502. Here which, and the comma before as, should both be expunged. "I shall raise in their minds the same course of thought as has taken possession of my own."—Duncan's Logic, p. 61. "The pronoun must be in the same case as the antecedent would be in, if substituted for it."—Murray's Gram., p. 181. "The verb must therefore have the same construction as it has in the following sentence."—Murray's Key, p. 190. Here as is exactly equivalent to the relative that, and either may be used with equal propriety. We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that, as the latter word is sometimes a conjunction and sometimes a pronoun, so is the former.

OBS. 23.—The relatives that and as have this peculiarity; that, unlike whom and which, they never follow the word on which their case depends; nor indeed can any simple relative be so placed, except it be governed by a preposition or an infinitive. Thus, it is said, (John, xiii, 29th,) "Buy those things that we have need of;" so we may say, "Buy such things as we have need of." But we cannot say, "Buy those things of that we have need;" or, "Buy such things of as we have need." Though we may say, "Buy those things of which we have need," as well as, "Buy those things which we have need of;" or, "Admit those persons of whom we have need," as well as, "Admit those persons whom we have need of." By this it appears that that and as have a closer connexion with their antecedents than the other relatives require: a circumstance worthy to have been better remembered by some critics. "Again, that and as are used rather differently. When that is used, the verb must be repeated; as, 'Participles require the same government, that their verbs require.'—'James showed the same credulity, that his minister showed.' But when as is used, the verb generally may, or may not be repeated; as, 'Participles require the same government as their verbs;' or, 'as their verbs require.'—'James showed the same credulity as his minister;' or, 'as his minister showed:' the second nominative minister being parsed as the nominative to the same verb showed understood."—Nixon's Parser, p. 140.[195]

OBS. 24.—The terminating of a sentence with a preposition, or other small particle, is in general undignified, though perhaps not otherwise improper. Hence the above-named inflexibility in the construction of that and as, sometimes induces an ellipsis of the governing word designed; and is occasionally attended with some difficulty respecting the choice of our terms. Examples: "The answer is always in the same case that the interrogative word is."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 70. Here is a faulty termination; and with it a more faulty ellipsis. In stead of ending the sentence with is in, say, "The answer always agrees in case with the interrogative word." Again: "The relative is of the same person with the antecedent."—Lowth's Gram., p. 101. This sentence is wrong, because the person of the relative is not really identical with the antecedent. "The relative is of the same person as the antecedent."—Murray's Gram., p. 154. Here the writer means—"as the antecedent is of." "A neuter verb becomes active, when followed by a noun of the same signification with its own."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 127. Here same is wrong, or else the last three words are useless. It would therefore be improper to say—"of the same signification as its own." The expression ought to be—"of a signification similar to its own." "Ode is, in Greek, the same with song or hymn."—Blair's Rhet., p. 396. Song being no Greek word, I cannot think the foregoing expression accurate, though one might say, "Ode is identical with song or hymn." Would it not be better to say, "Ode is the same as song or hymn?" That is, "Ode is, literally, the same thing that song or hymn is?" "Treatises of philosophy, ought not to be composed in the same style with orations."—Blair's Rhet., p. 175. Here neither with nor as can be proper; because orations are not a style. Expunge same; and say—"in the style of orations."

OBS. 25.—Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using whom for that "after an adjective of the superlative degree:" "Modifying them according to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of the best speakers and writers by whom it is used."—Octavo Gram., p. 1; Fisk's, p. 11; et al. According to Priestley and himself, the great Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, "the best speakers and writers that it is used by;" he ought to have said, "the best speakers and writers that use it." Or, rather, he ought to have said nothing after the word "writers;" because the whole relative clause is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct it according to the author's own rule!

OBS. 26.—Relative pronouns are capable of being taken in two very different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the antecedent; the other, resumptive of that idea, in the full import of the term—or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of a comma. Thus, if I say, "Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" the relative who is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak only of the avaricious. But, if I say, "Men, who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" by separating the terms men and who, I declare all men to be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative that is preferable to who; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the latter form, is found in Sanborn's Grammar, page 142d; but whether the author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and, in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as, "A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms."—Analytical Gram., p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an assertion of two things; that a prism is a solid, and that all the sides of a solid are parallelograms. Erase the comma, and the words will describe the prism as a peculiar kind of solid; because whose will then be taken in the restrictive sense. This sense, however, may be conveyed even with a comma before the relative; as, "Some fictitious histories yet remain, that were composed during the decline of the Roman empire."—Blair's Rhet., p. 374. This does not suggest that there are no other fictitious histories now extant, than such as were composed during the decline of the Roman empire; but I submit it to the reader, whether the word which, if here put for that, would not convey this idea.

OBS. 27.—Upon this point, many philologists are open to criticism; and none more so, than the recent author above cited. By his own plain showing, this grammarian has no conception of the difference of meaning, upon which the foregoing distinction is founded. What marvel, then, that he falls into errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference exists, or none that is worthy of a critic's notice; then the error is mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of relative pronouns. For example: "The boy that desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."—G. Brown. "That boy, who desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."—D. H. Sanborn. According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter example this author says, "The clause, 'who desires to assist his companions,' with the relative who at its head, explains or tells what boy deserves respect; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the noun boy."—Analytical Gram., p. 69. He therefore takes it in a restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the former. But he adds, "A relative pronoun is resolvable into a personal pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires to assist his companions, and he deserves respect.' The relative pronoun governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one."—Ib., p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given, not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but, with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb, and the substituted pronoun to the more distant.

OBS. 28.—Again, the following principles of this author's punctuation are no less indicative of his false views of this matter: "RULE xiv.—Relative pronouns in the nominative or [the] objective case, are preceded by commas, when the clause which the relative connects [,] ends a sentence; as, 'Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every accomplishment'—B. Greenleaf.' Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which virtue must make.' [—L.