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

4. When a supposition is made without the conjunction if; as, "Had they known it;" for, "If they had known it."—"Were it true;" for, "If it were true."—"Could we draw by the covering of the grave;" for, "If we could draw," &c.

5. When neither or nor, signifying and not, precedes the verb; as, "This was his fear; nor was his apprehension groundless."—"Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it."—Gen., iii, 3.

6. When, for the sake of emphasis, some word or words are placed before the verb, which more naturally come after it; as, "Here am I."—"Narrow is the way."—"Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have, give I thee."—Bible.

7. When the verb has no regimen, and is itself emphatical; as, "Echo the mountains round."—Thomson. "After the Light Infantry marched the Grenadiers, then followed the Horse."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. 71.

8. When the verbs, say, answer, reply, and the like, introduce the parts of a dialogue; as, "'Son of affliction,' said Omar, 'who art thou?' 'My name,' replied the stranger, 'is Hassan.'"—Dr. Johnson.

9. When the adverb there precedes the verb; as, "There lived a man."—Montgomery. "In all worldly joys, there is a secret wound."—Owen. This use of there, the general introductory adverb of place, is idiomatic, and somewhat different from the use of the same word in reference to a particular locality; as, "Because there was not much water there."—John, iii, 23.

OBS. 3.—In exclamations, and some other forms of expression, a few verbs are liable to be suppressed, the ellipsis being obvious; as, "How different [is] this from the philosophy of Greece and Rome!"—DR. BEATTIE: Murray's Sequel, p. 127. "What a lively picture [is here] of the most disinterested and active benevolence!"—HERVEY: ib., p. 94. "When Adam [spake] thus to Eve."—MILTON: Paradise Lost, B. iv, l. 610.

OBS. 4.—Though we often use nouns in the nominative case to show whom we address, yet the imperative verb takes no other nominative of the second person, than the simple personal pronoun, thou, ye, or you, expressed or understood. It would seem that some, who ought to know better, are liable to mistake for the subject of such a verb, the noun which we put absolute in the nominative by direct address. Of this gross error, the following is an example: "Study boys. In this sentence," (says its author,) "study is a verb of the second person, plural number, and agrees with its nominative case, boys—according to the rule: A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person. Boys is a noun of the second person, plural number, masculine gender, in the nominative case to the verb study."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 17.[339] Now the fact is, that this laconic address, of three syllables, is written wrong; being made bad English for want of a comma between the two words. Without this mark, boys must be an objective, governed by study; and with it, a nominative, put absolute by direct address. But, in either case, study agrees with ye or you understood, and has not the noun for its subject, or nominative.

OBS. 5.—Some authors say, and if the first person be no exception, say truly: "The nominative case to a verb, unless it be a pronoun, is always of the third person."—Churchill's Gram., p. 141. But W. B. Fowle will have all pronouns to be adjectives. Consequently all his verbs, of every sort, agree with nouns "expressed or understood." This, and every other absurd theory of language, can easily be made out, by means of a few perversions, which may be called corrections, and a sufficient number of interpolations, made under pretence of filling up ellipses. Thus, according to this author, "They fear," means, "They things spoken of fear."—True Eng. Gram., p, 33. And, "John, open the door," or, "Boys, stop your noise," admits no comma. And, "Be grateful, ye children," and, "Be ye grateful children," are, in his view, every way equivalent: the comma in the former being, in his opinion, needless. See ib., p. 39.

OBS. 6.—Though the nominative and objective cases of nouns do not differ in form, it is nevertheless, in the opinion of many of our grammarians, improper to place any noun in both relations at once, because this produces a confusion in the syntax of the word. Examples: "He then goes on to declare that there are, and distinguish of, four manners of saying Per se."—Walker's Treatise of Particles, p. xii. Better: "He then proceeds to show, that per se is susceptible of four different senses." "In just allegory and similitude there is always a propriety, or, if you choose to call it, congruity, in the literal sense, as well as a distinct meaning or sentiment suggested, which is called the figurative sense."—Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 291. Better: "In just allegory or similitude, there is always a propriety—or, if you choose to call it so, a congruity—in the literal sense," &c. "It must then be meant of his sins who makes, not of his who becomes, the convert."—Atterbury's Sermons, i, 2. Better: "It must then be meant of his sins who makes the convert, not of his who becomes converted." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."—1 Cor., ii, 9. A more regular construction would be: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." The following example, from Pope, may perhaps be conceded to the poet, as an allowable ellipsis of the words "a friend," after is:

   "In who obtain defence, or who defend;
    In him who is, or him who finds, a friend."
        —Essay on Man, Ep. iv, l. 60.

Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, "There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective case."—Lowth's Gram., p. 73. He should have said—"of both the nominative and the objective case." Dr. Webster, citing the line, "In him who is, and him who finds, a friend," adds, "Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but without reason, as the cases are not distinguished in English."—Improved Gram., p. 175.

OBS. 7.—In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned the subject of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule—or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative. This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb. Example: "[Greek: Eipen auton phonæthænai]."—Mark, x, 49. "Ait illum vocari."—Leusden. "Jussit eum vocari."—Beza. "Præcepit illum vocari."—Vulgate. "He commanded him to be called."—English Bible. "He commanded that he should be called."—Milnes's Gr. Gram., p. 143. "Il dit qu'on l'appelât."—French Bible. "He bid that somebody should call him." "Il commanda qu'on le fît venir."—Nouveau Test., Paris, 1812. "He commanded that they should make him come;" that is, "lead him, or bring him." "Il commanda qu'on l'appelât."—De Sacy's N. Test.

OBS. 8.—In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition. Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. "Gaudeo te val=ere," "I am glad that thou art well," cannot be translated more literally; because, "I am glad thee to be well," would not be good English. "Aiunt regem advent=are," "They say the king is coming," may be otherwise rendered "They declare the king to be coming;" but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of aiunt, say, into such a verb as will govern the noun.

OBS. 9.—The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: "But experience teacheth us, both these opinions to be alike ridiculous."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, "But experience teaches us, that both these opinions are alike ridiculous." The verbs believe, think, imagine, and others expressing mental action, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: "RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] 'I believe your brother to be a good man.' Here believe does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. Brother, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb to be, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular."—S. Barrett's Gram., p. 135. This author teaches that, "The infinitive mode agrees with the objective case in number and person."—Ibid. Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun brother, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb believe, and the subject of the neuter infinitive to be, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.

OBS. 10.—There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: "The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, 'Suffer me to depart.'" [340]—English Parser, p. 34. "When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as 'I understood it to be him,' 'Suffer me to depart,' such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, the subject of it. The reason of this is—the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive following, and not governed by the former verb; as, in that instance, it would be governing two objects."—Ib., Note.[341]

OBS. 11.—The notion that one verb governs an other in the infinitive, just as a transitive verb governs a noun, and so that it cannot also govern an objective case, is not only contradictory to my scheme of parsing the infinitive mood, but is also false in itself, and repugnant to the principles of General Grammar. In Greek and Latin, it is certainly no uncommon thing for a verb to govern two cases at once; and even the accusative before the infinitive is sometimes governed by the preceding verb, as the objective before the infinitive naturally is in English. But, in regard to construction, every language differs more or less from every other; hence each must have its own syntax, and abide by its own rules. In regard to the point here in question, the reader may compare the following examples: "[Greek: Echo anagkæn exelthein]."—Luke, xiv, 18. "Habeo necesse exire."—Leusden. English: "I have occasion to go away." Again: "[Greek: O echon hota akouein, akoueto]."—Luke, xiv, 35. "Habens aures audiendi, audiat."—Leusden. "Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat."—Beza. English: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." But our most frequent use of the infinitive after the objective, is in sentences that must not be similarly constructed in Latin or Greek;[342] as, "And he commanded the porter to watch."—Mark, xiii, 34. "And he delivered Jesus to be crucified."—Mark, xv, 15. "And they led him out to crucify him."—Mark, xv, 20. "We heard him say."—Mark, xiv, 58. "That I might make thee know."—Prov., xxii, 21.

OBS. 12.—If our language does really admit any thing like the accusative before the infinitive, in the sense of a positive subject at the head of a clause, it is only in some prospective descriptions like the following: "Let certain studies be prescribed to be pursued during the freshman year; some of these to be attended to by the whole class; with regard to others, a choice to be allowed; which, when made by the student, (the parent or guardian sanctioning it,) to be binding during the freshman year: the same plan to be adopted with regard to the studies of the succeeding years."—GALLAUDET: Journal of the N. Y. Literary Convention, p. 118. Here the four