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

OBS. 41.—Idioms, or peculiarities of expression, are never to be approved or valued, but according to their convenience, utility, or elegance. By this rule, some phrases that are not positively barbarous, may yet be ungrammatical, and a construction that is sometimes allowable, may yet be quite unworthy to be made or reckoned, "the common mode of expression." Thus, in Latin, the infinitive verb is occasionally put for a noun, and taken to signify a property possessed; as, "Tuum scire, [thy to know,] the same as tua scientia, thy knowledge. Pers."—Adam's Gram., p. 153. So, in English, the participle in ing is often taken substantively, when it does not actually become a substantive or noun; as, "Thy knowing this,"—"Our doing so."—West. Such forms of speech, because they are idiomatical, seldom admit of any literal translation, and are never naturalized by any transfer from one language or dialect into an other; nor is it proper for grammarians to justify them, in vernacular speech, except as figures or anomalies that ought not to be generally imitated. It cannot be truly affirmed, that the genius of our language ever requires that participles, as such, should assume the relations of a noun, or govern the possessive case; nor, on the other hand, can it be truly denied, that very excellent and learned writers do sometimes make use of such phraseology. Without disrespect to the many users and approvers of these anomalies, I set down for bad English every mixed construction of the participle, for which the language can furnish an equivalent expression that is more simple and more elegant. The extent to which these comparative barbarisms now abound in English books, and the ridiculous fondness for them, which has been shown by some writers on English grammar, in stead of amounting to any argument in their favour, are in fact, plain proofs of the necessity of an endeavour to arrest so obvious and so pernicious an innovation.

OBS. 42.—A late author observes as follows: "That the English gerund, participle, or verbal noun, in ing, has both an active and a passive signification, there can be little doubt.[424] Whether the Latin gerund has precisely a similar import, or whether it is only active, it may be difficult, and, indeed, after all, it is not of much moment, to ascertain."—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 234. The gerund in Latin most commonly governs the case of its own verb, as does the active participle, both in Latin and English: as, "Efferor studio patres vestros videndi. Cic. de sen. 23."—Lily's Gram., p. 96. That is, "I am transported, with a desire of seeing your fathers." But sometimes we find the gerund taken substantively and made to govern the genitive. Or,—to adopt the language of an old grammarian:—"Interdum non invenustè additur gerundiis in di etiam genitivus pluralis: ut, 'Quum illorum videndi gratiâ me in forum contulissem.'—'Novarum [qui] spectandi faciunt copiam.' Ter. Heaut. prol. 29."—Lily's Gram., p. 97. That is, "To gerunds in di there is sometimes not inelegantly added a genitive plural: as, 'When, for the sake of seeing of them, I went into the forum.'—'Who present an opportunity of attending of new ones:' i.e., new comedies." Here the of which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers do now and then adopt this idiom. The gerund thus governing the genitive, is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for the subject of the being or action, but for what would otherwise be the object of the gerund, or of the participle, as may be seen above. The objection to the participle as governing the possessive, is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed. R. Johnson, like many others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective, and has merely a preposition before it; as, "For the sake of seeing them. Where seeing (says he) is a Substantive."—Gram. Com., p. 353.

OBS. 43.—If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the agent, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective. But I have before observed that no such analogy appears. The following example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the genitive of the agent: "Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est—Cic."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 236. That is, (as I understand it,) "But in whose speaking something is reprehended." This seems to me a case in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so. But a single example is not sufficient. If the doctrine is true, there must be others. In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that cujus is here governed by aliquid, and not by the gerund. "Here," says Grant, "I am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the liberty to use, 'That, for the sake of euphony, the gerund is sometimes found governing the genitive of the patient, or subject [say object] of the action, is unquestionable: thus, studio videndi patrum vestrorum. [That is, literally, By a desire of seeing of your fathers.] But I recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the patient, but the agent; as, dicendum meum, ejus dicendum, cujus dicendum. [That is, my speaking, his speaking, whose speaking.] In truth, these phraseologies appear to me, not only repugnant to the idiom of the language, but also unfavourable to precision and perspicuity.'"—Grant's Latin Gram., 8vo, p. 236.

OBS. 44.—Of that particular distinction between the participle and the participial noun, which depends on the insertion or omission of the article and the preposition of, a recent grammarian of considerable merit adopts the following views: "This double nature of the participle has led to much irregularity in its use. Thus we find, 'indulging which,' 'indulging of which,' 'the indulging which,' and 'the indulging of which,' used indiscriminately. Lowth very properly instructs us, either to use both the article and the preposition with the participle; as, 'the indulging of which:' or to reject both; as, 'indulging which:' thus keeping the verbal and substantive forms distinct. But he is wrong, as Dr. Crombie justly remarks, in considering these two modes of expression as perfectly similar. Suppose I am told, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in hearing Fawcet:' I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Bloomfield great pleasure. But were it said, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in the hearing of Fawcet:' I should be led to conclude merely that the orator was within hearing, when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt from something, about which I have no information. Accordingly Dr. Crombie suggests as a general rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing something, the article should be inserted before the participle, and the preposition after it; and, when the noun is passive, or represents the object of an action, both the article and the preposition should be omitted:[425] agreeably to the examples just adduced. It is true, that when the noun following the participle denotes something incapable of the action the participle expresses, no mistake can arise from using either form: as, 'The middle condition seems to be the most advantageously situate for the gaining of wisdom. Poverty turns our thoughts too much upon the supplying of our wants; and riches, upon enjoying our superfluities.' Addison, Spect., 464. Yet I cannot think it by any means a commendable practice, thus to jumble together different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as the two modes of expression have different significations, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr. Crombie's rule, even when no mistake could arise from interchanging them."—Churchill's Gram., p. 319.

OBS. 45.—The two modes of expression which these grammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, are the same that Lindley Murray and his copyists suppose to be generally equivalent, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do "not in every instance convey the same meaning." (See Obs. 27th above.) If Dr. Lowth considered them "as perfectly similar," he was undoubtedly very wrong in this matter: though not more so than these gentlemen, who resolve to interpret them as being perfectly and constantly dissimilar. Dr. Adam says, "There are, both in Latin and [in] English, substantives derived from the verb, which so much resemble the Gerund in their signification, that frequently they may be substituted in its place. They are generally used, however, in a more undetermined sense than the Gerund, and in English, have the article always[426] prefixed to them. Thus, with the gerund, Detector legendo Ciceronem, I am delighted with reading Cicero. But with the substantive, Delector lectione Ciceronis, I am delighted with the reading of Cicero."—Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 142. "Gerunds are so called because they, as it were, signify the thing in gerendo, (anciently written gerundo,) in doing; and, along with the action, convey an idea of the agent."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 70; Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 353. "The reading of Cicero," does not necessarily signify an action of which Cicero is the agent, as Crombie, Churchill, and Hiley choose to expound it; and, since the gerundive construction of words in ing ought to have a definite reference to the agent or subject of the action or being, one may perhaps amend even some of their own phraseology above, by preferring the participial noun: as, "No mistake can arise from the using of either form."—"And riches [turn our thoughts too much] upon the enjoying of our superfluities."—"Even when no mistake could arise from the interchanging of them." Where the agent of the action plainly appears, the gerundive form is to be preferred on account of its brevity; as, "By the observing of truth, you will command respect;" or, "By observing truth, &c."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 189. Here the latter phraseology is greatly preferable, though this author did not perceive it. "I thought nothing was to be done by me before the giving of you thanks."—Walker's Particles, p. 63. Say,—"before giving you thanks;" for otherwise the word thanks has no proper construction, the pronoun alone being governed by of—and here again is an error; for "you" ought to be the object of to.

OBS. 46.—In Hiley's Treatise, a work far more comprehensive than the generality of grammars, "the established principles and best usages of the English" Participle are so adroitly summed up, as to occupy only two pages, one in Etymology, and an other in Syntax. The author shows how the participle differs from a verb, and how from an adjective; yet he neither makes it a separate part of speech, nor tells us with what other it ought to be included. In lieu of a general rule for the parsing of all participles, he presents the remark, "Active transitive participles, like their verbs, govern the objective case; as, 'I am desirous of hearing him;' 'Having praised them, he sat down.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 93. This is a rule by which one may parse the few objectives which are governed by participles; but, for the usual construction of participles themselves, it is no rule at all; neither does the grammar, full as it is, contain any. "Hearing" is here governed by of, and "Having praised" relates to he; but this author teaches neither of these facts, and the former he expressly contradicts by his false definition of a preposition. In his first note, is exhibited, in two parts, the false and ill-written rule which Churchill quotes from Crombie. (1.) "When the noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing something, the participle must have an article before it, and the preposition of after it; as, 'In the hearing of the philosopher;' or, 'In the philosopher's hearing;' 'By the preaching of Christ;' or, 'By Christ's preaching.' In these instances," says Hiley, "the words hearing and preaching are substantives." If so, he ought to have corrected this rule, which twice calls them participles; but, in stead of doing that, he blindly adds, by way of alternative, two examples which expressly contradict what the rule asserts. (2.) "But when the noun represents the object of an action, the article and the preposition of must be omitted; as, 'In hearing the philosopher.'"—Ib., p. 94. If this principle is right, my second note below, and most of the corrections under it, are wrong. But