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

between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 33: Murray's, i, 70; Emmons's, 41; and others. The following example therefore, however the participle may seem to be the leading word in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: "The reason and time of the Son of God's becoming man."—Brown's Divinity, p. xxii. Many writers would here be satisfied with merely omitting the possessive sign; as does Churchill, in the following example: "The chief cause of this appears to me to lie in grammarians having considered them solely as the signs of tense."—New Gram., p. 243. But this sort of construction, too, whenever the noun before the participle is not the leading word in sense, is ungrammatical. In stead, therefore, of stickling for choice between two such errors, we ought to adopt some better expression; as, "The reason and time of the Saviour's incarnation."—"The chief cause of this appears to me to be, that grammarians have considered them solely as signs of tense."

OBS. 29.—It is certain that the noun or pronoun which "limits the meaning of a participle," cannot always be "put in the genitive" or possessive case; for the sense intended sometimes positively forbids such a construction, and requires the objective: as, "A syllable consists of one or more letters forming one sound."—Allen's Gram., p. 29. The word representing or denoting would here be better than forming, because the letters do not, strictly speaking, form the sound. But chiefly let it be noticed, that the word letters could not with any propriety have been put in the possessive case. Nor is it always necessary or proper, to prefer that case, where the sense may be supposed to admit it; as, "'The example which Mr. Seyer has adduced, of the gerund governing the genitive of the agent.' Dr. Crombie."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 237. "Which possibly might have been prevented by parents doing their duty."—N. E. Discipline, p. 187. "As to the seeming contradiction of One being Three, and Three One."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 113. "You have watched them climbing from chair to chair."—PIERPONT: Liberator, Vol. x, p. 22. "Whether the world came into being as it is, by an intelligent Agent forming it thus, or not."—Butler's Analogy, p. 129. "In the farther supposition of necessary agents being thus rewarded and punished."—Ib., p. 140. "He grievously punished the Israelites murmuring for want of water."—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 21. Here too the words, gerund, parents, One, Three, them, Agent, agents, and Israelites, are rightly put in the objective case; yet doubtless some will think, though I do not, that they might as well have been put in the possessive. Respectable writers sometimes use the latter case, where the former would convey the same meaning, and be more regular; as, "Which is used, as active verbs often are, without its regimen's being expressed."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 302. Omit the apostrophe and s; and, if you please, the word being also. "The daily instances of men's dying around us."—Butler's Analogy, p. 113. Say rather,—"of men dying around us." "To prevent our rashly engaging in arduous or dangerous enterprises."—Brown's Divinity, p. 17. Say, "To prevent us from," &c. The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong: "The kitchen too now begins to give 'dreadful note of preparation;' not from armourers accomplishing the knights, but from the shop maid's chopping force meat, the apprentice's cleaning knives, and the journeyman's receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 66. It should be—"not from armorers accomplishing the knights, but from the shopmaid chopping forcemeat, the apprentice cleaning knives, and the journeyman receiving," &c. The nouns are the principal words, and the participles are adjuncts. They might be separated by commas, if semicolons were put where the commas now are.

OBS. 30.—Our authors, good and bad, critics and no critics, with few exceptions, write sometimes the objective case before the participle, and sometimes the possessive, under precisely the same circumstances; as, "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody suffering."—Blair's Rhet., p. 122. "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 327. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody suffering."—Murray's Exercises, 8vo, p. 60. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 195. "And I explain what is meant by the nominative case governing the verb, and by the verb agreeing with its nominative case."—Rand's Gram., p. 31. "Take the verb study, and speak of John's studying his lesson, at different times."—Ib., p. 53. "The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., p. 112. "The following are examples of an adverb's qualifying a whole sentence."—Ib., p. 128. "Where the noun is the name of a person, the cases may also be distinguished by the nominative's answering to WHO, and the objective to WHOM."—Hart's Gram., p. 46. "This depends chiefly on their being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel sound being long or short."—Churchill's Gram., p. 182. "When they speak of a monosyllable having the grave or the acute accent."—Walker's Key, p. 328. Here some would erroneously prefer the possessive case before "having;" but, if any amendment can be effected it is only by inserting as there. "The event of Maria's loving her brother."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 55. "Between that and the man being on it."—Ib., p. 59. "The fact of James placing himself."—Ib., p. 166. "The event of the persons' going."—Ib., p. 165. Here persons' is carelessly put for person's, i.e., James's: the author was parsing the puerile text, "James went into a store and placed himself beside Horatio."—Ib., p. 164. And I may observe, in passing, that Murray and Blair are both wrong in using commas with the adverb presently above.

OBS. 31.—It would be easy to fill a page with instances of these two cases, the objective and the possessive, used, as I may say, indiscriminately; nor is there any other principle by which we can determine which of them is right, or which preferable, than that the leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in the construction, and that the participle, if it remain such, ought rather to relate to its noun, as being the adjunct, than to govern it in the possessive, as being the principal term. To what extent either of these cases may properly be used before the participle, or in what instances either of them may be preferable to the other, it is not very easy to determine. Both are used a great deal too often, filling with blemishes the style of many authors: the possessive, because the participle is not the name of any thing that can be possessed; the objective, because no construction can be right in which the relation of the terms is not formed according to the sense. The former usage I have already criticised to a great extent. Let one example suffice here: "There can be no objection to a syllable's being long, on the ground of its not being so long, or so much protracted, as some other long syllables are."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer syllable to syllable's, but none would be apt to put it for its, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a syllable as being long, on the ground that it is not so long as some other syllables."

OBS. 32.—It should be observed, that the use of as between the participle and the noun is very often better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military success as forming a claim to civil position."—Boston Daily Advertiser. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any one being chosen for a pattern."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its authenticity being shaken, it has been rendered more sure than ever."— West's Letters, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper candidate being nominated by either party."—Liberator, Vol. x. p. 9. "On the first stone being thrown, it was returned by a fire of musketry."—Ib., p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent person being circumvented by bribery."—Blair's Rhet., p. 276. "Whose principles forbid them taking part in the administration of the government."— Liberator, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross bodies being ourselves."—Butler's Analogy, p. 150. "In consequence of this revelation being made."—Ib., p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "Scarcely is any one ever chosen for a pattern."— "Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken, has been rendered more sure than ever."—"When there is no longer a possibility that a proper candidate will be nominated by either party."—"As soon as the first stone was thrown, there was returned a fire of musketry."—"To raise a cry, as if an innocent person had been circumvented by bribery."— "Whose principles forbid them to take part in the administration of the government."—"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies are ourselves."—"In consequence of this revelation which is made."

OBS. 33.—A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some late writers have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady Macbeth's walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.' This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, Lady Macbeth; whereas the meaning is, not that Lady Macbeth, but her walking in her sleep, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my horse's running to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my horse running to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."— Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram., p. 15. (See Crombie's Treatise, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my horse running to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my horse's running? means, he has run, do you think he ran well?"— Lennie's Gram., p. 91; Brace's Gram., 94. See Bullions's Gram., p. 107; Hiley's, 94; Murray's, 8vo. 195: Ingersoll's, 201: and many others.

OBS. 34.—Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word walking, preceded by a possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a noun, and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use of possessives before participles, and even to hold all phraseology of this kind "unobjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of that