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

split into two by a pause."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 83. This appears to be right in sense, but because brevity is desirable in unemphatic particles, I suppose most persons would say, "split in two." In the Bible we have the phrases, "rent in twain,"—"cut in pieces,"—"brake in pieces the rocks,"—"brake all their bones in pieces,"—"brake them to pieces,"—"broken to pieces,"—"pulled in pieces." In all these, except the first, to may perhaps be considered preferable to in; and into would be objectionable only because it is longer and less simple. "Half of them dare not shake the snow from off their cassocks, lest they shake themselves to pieces."—SHAK.: Kames, ii, 246.

OBS. 13.—Between, or betwixt, is used in reference to two things or parties; among, or amongst, amid, or amidst, in reference to a greater number, or to something by which an other may be surrounded: as, "Thou pendulum betwixt a smile and tear."—Byron. "The host between the mountain and the shore."—Id. "To meditate amongst decay, and stand a ruin amidst ruins."—Id. In the following examples, the import of these prepositions is not very accurately regarded; "The Greeks wrote in capitals, and left no spaces between their words."—Wilson's Essay, p. 6. This construction may perhaps be allowed, because the spaces by which words are now divided, occur severally between one word and an other; but the author might as well have said, "and left no spaces to distinguish their words." "There was a hunting match agreed upon betwixt a lion, an ass, and a fox."—L'Estrange. Here by or among would, I think, be better than betwixt, because the partners were more than two. "Between two or more authors, different readers will differ, exceedingly, as to the preference in point of merit."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 162; Jamieson's, 40; Murray's Gram., i, 360. Say, "Concerning two or more authors," because between is not consistent with the word more. "Rising one among another in the greatest confusion and disorder."—Spect., No. 476. Say, "Rising promiscuously," or, "Rising all at once;" for among is not consistent with the distributive term one an other.

OBS. 14.—Of two prepositions coming together between the same terms of relation, and sometimes connected in the same construction, I have given several plain examples in this chapter, and in the tenth chapter of Etymology, a very great number, all from sources sufficiently respectable. But, in many of our English grammars, there is a stereotyped remark on this point, originally written by Priestley, which it is proper here to cite, as an other specimen of the Doctor's hastiness, and of the blind confidence of certain compilers and copyists: "Two different prepositions must be improper in the same construction, and in the same sentence: [as,] The combat between thirty Britons, against twenty English. Smollett's Voltaire, Vol. 2, p. 292."—Priestley's Gram., p. 156. Lindley Murray and others have the same remark, with the example altered thus: "The combat between thirty French against twenty English."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 200; Smith's New Gram., 167: Fisk's, 142; Ingersoll's, 228. W. Allen has it thus: "Two different prepositions in the same construction are improper; as, a combat between twenty French against thirty English."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 179. He gives the odds to the latter party. Hiley, with no expense of thought, first takes from Murray, as he from Priestley, the useless remark, "Different relations, and different senses, must be expressed by different prepositions;" and then adds, "One relation must not, therefore, be expressed by two different prepositions in the same clause; thus, 'The combat between thirty French against thirty English,' should be, 'The combat between thirty French and thirty English.'"—Hiley's E. Gram., p 97. It is manifest that the error of this example is not in the use of two prepositions, nor is there any truth or fitness in the note or notes made on it by all these critics; for had they said, "The combat of thirty French against twenty English," there would still be two prepositions, but where would be the impropriety, or where the sameness of construction, which they speak of? Between is incompatible with against, only because it requires two parties or things for its own regimen; as, "The combat between thirty Frenchmen and twenty Englishmen." This is what Smollett should have written, to make sense with the word "between."

OBS. 15.—With like implicitness, Hiley excepted, these grammarians and others have adopted from Lowth an observation in which the learned doctor has censured quite too strongly the joint reference of different prepositions to the same objective noun: to wit, "Some writers separate the preposition from its noun, in order to connect different prepositions to the same noun; as, 'To suppose the zodiac and planets to be efficient of, and antecedent to, themselves.' Bentley, Serm. 6. This [construction], whether in the familiar or the solemn style, is always inelegant; and should never be admitted, but in forms of law, and the like; where fullness and exactness of expression must take place of every other consideration."—Lowth's Gram., p. 96; Murray's, i, 200; Smith's, 167; Fisk's, 141; Ingersoll's, 228; Alger's, 67; Picket's, 207. Churchill even goes further, both strengthening the censure, and disallowing the exception: thus, "This, whether in the solemn or in the familiar style, is always inelegant, and should never be admitted. It is an awkward shift for avoiding the repetition of a word, which might be accomplished without it by any person who has the least command of language."—New Gram., p. 341. Yet, with all their command of language, not one of these gentlemen has told us how the foregoing sentence from Bentley may be amended; while many of their number not only venture to use different prepositions before the same noun, but even to add a phrase which puts that noun in the nominative case: as, "Thus, the time of the infinitive may be before, after, or the same as, the time of the governing verb, according as the thing signified by the infinitive is supposed to be before, after, or present with, the thing denoted by the governing verb."—Murray's Gram., i, 191; Ingersoll's, 260; R. C. Smith's, 159.

OBS. 16.—The structure of this example not only contradicts palpably, and twice over, the doctrine cited above, but one may say of the former part of it, as Lowth, Murray, and others do, (in no very accurate English,) of the text 1 Cor., ii, 9: "There seems to be an impropriety in this sentence, in which the same noun serves in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective cases."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 224. See also Lowth's Gram., p. 73; Ingersoll's, 277; Fisk's, 149; Smith's, 185. Two other examples, exactly like that which is so pointedly censured above, are placed by Murray under his thirteenth rule for the comma; and these likewise, with all faithfulness, are copied by Ingersoll, Smith, Alger, Kirkham, Comly, Russell, and I know not how many more. In short, not only does this rule of their punctuation include the construction in question; but the following exception to it, which is remarkable for its various faults, or thorough faultiness, is applicable to no other: "Sometimes, when the word with which the last preposition agrees, is single, it is better to omit the comma before it: as, 'Many states were in alliance with, and under the protection of Rome.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 272; Smith's, 190; Ingersoll's, 284; Kirkham's, 215; Alger's, 79; Alden's, 149; Abel Flint's, 103; Russell's, 115. But the blunders and contradictions on this point, end not here. Dr. Blair happened most unlearnedly to say, "What is called splitting of particles, or separating a preposition from the noun which it governs, is always to be avoided. As if I should say, 'Though virtue borrows no assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of fortune.'"—Lect. XII, p. 112. This too, though the author himself did not always respect the rule, has been thought worthy to be copied, or stolen, with all its faults! See Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 93; and Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 319.

OBS. 17.—Dr. Lowth says, "The noun aversion, (that is, a turning away,) as likewise the adjective averse, seems to require the preposition from after it; and not so properly to admit of to, or for, which are often used with it."—Gram., p. 98. But this doctrine has not been adopted by the later grammarians: "The words averse and aversion (says Dr. Campbell) are more properly construed with to than with from. The examples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison outnumbered by those in favour of the former."—Murray's Gram., i, 201; Fisk's, 142; Ingersoll's, 229. This however must be understood only of mental aversion. The expression of Milton, "On the coast averse from entrance," would not be improved, if from were changed to to. So the noun exception, and the verb to except, are sometimes followed by from, which has regard to the Latin particle ex, with which the word commences; but the noun at least is much more frequently, and perhaps more properly, followed by to. Examples: "Objects of horror must be excepted from the foregoing theory."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 268. "From which there are but two exceptions, both of them rare."—Ib., ii. 89. "To the rule that fixes the pause after the fifth portion, there is one exception, and no more."—Ib., ii, 84. "No exception can be taken to the justness of the figure."—Ib., ii, 37. "Originally there was no exception from the rule."—Lowth's Gram., p. 58. "From this rule there is mostly an exception."—Murray's Gram., i, 269. "But to this rule there are many exceptions."—Ib., i. 240. "They are not to be regarded as exceptions from the rule,"—Campbell's Rhet., p. 363.

OBS. 18.—After correcting the example. "He knows nothing on [of] it," Churchill remarks, "There seems to be a strange perverseness among the London vulgar in perpetually substituting on for of, and of for on."—New Gram., p. 345. And among the expressions which Campbell censures under the name of vulgarism, are the following: "'Tis my humble request you will be particular in speaking to the following points."—Guardian, No. 57. "The preposition ought to have been on. Precisely of the same stamp is the on't for of it, so much used by one class of writers."—Philosophy of Rhet., p. 217. So far as I have observed, the use of of for on has never been frequent; and that of on for of, or on't for of it, though it may never have been a polite custom, is now a manifest archaism, or imitation of ancient usage. "And so my young Master, whatever comes on't, must have a Wife look'd out for him."—Locke, on Ed., p. 378. In Saxon, on was put for more than half a dozen of our present prepositions. The difference between of and on or upon, appears in general to be obvious enough; and yet there are some phrases in which it is not easy to determine which of these words ought to be preferred: as, "Many things they cannot lay hold on at once."—HOOKER: Joh. Dict. "Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it."—2 SAM.: ib. "Rather thou shouldst lay hold upon him."—BEN JONSON: ib. "Let them find courage to lay hold on the occasion."—MILTON: ib. "The hand is fitted to lay hold of objects."—RAY: ib. "My soul took hold on thee."—ADDISON: ib. "To lay hold of this safe, this only method of cure."—ATTERBURY: ib. "And give fortune no more hold of him."—DRYDEN: ib. "And his laws take the surest hold of us."—TILLOTSON: ib. "It will then be impossible you can have any hold upon him."—SWIFT: ib. "The court of Rome gladly laid hold on all the opportunities."—Murray's Key, ii, p. 198. "Then did the officer lay hold of him and execute him."—Ib., ii, 219. "When one can lay hold upon some noted fact."—Blair's Rhet., p. 311. "But when we would lay firm hold of them."—Ib., p. 28. "An advantage which every one is glad to lay hold of."—Ib., p. 75. "To have laid fast hold of it in his mind."—Ib., p. 94. "I would advise them to lay aside their common-places, and to think closely of their subject."—Ib., p. 317. "Did they not take hold of your fathers?"—Zech., i, 6. "Ten men shall take hold of the skirt of one that is a Jew."—Ib., viii, 23. "It is wrong to say, either 'to lay hold of a thing,' or 'to take hold on it.'"—Blair's Gram., p. 101. In the following couplet, on seems to have been preferred only for a rhyme:

   "Yet, lo! in me what authors have to brag on!
    Reduc'd at last to hiss in my own dragon."—Pope.

OBS. 19.—In the allowable uses of prepositions, there may perhaps be some room for choice; so that what to the mind of a critic may not appear the fittest word, may yet be judged not positively ungrammatical. In this light I incline to view the following examples: "Homer's plan is still more defective, upon another account."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 299. Say—"on an