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

[346] For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference: "Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase." But in my edition of Dr. Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I do not find the passage. Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part.—G. BROWN.

[347] By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of participles to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood literally, assumes it as an "established principle," that they all do so! "Participles govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, require the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, without the intervention of the preposition of; as 'Much depends on William's observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it;' or, 'Much will depend on the rule's being observed by William, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 94. These sentences, without doubt, are nearly equivalent to each other in meaning. To make them exactly so, "depends" or "will depend" must be changed in tense, and "its being neglected" must be "its being neglected by him." But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among "the established principles and best usages of the English language?"—Ib., p. 1.

[348] What, in Weld's "Abridged Edition," is improperly called a "participial noun," was, in his "original work," still more erroneously termed "a participial clause." This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the participial—"object possessed;" but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss. "The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the clause, 'composing frequently.' NOTE.—The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial clause following it."—Weld's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 150. Again: "The possessive is often governed by a participial noun; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the participial noun composing. NOTE.—The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial noun following it."—Weld's Gram., Abridged, p. 117. Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can produce false syntax. To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note: "The participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived."—Ibid. When one part of speech is said to be used as an other, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand to which class the given word belongs. If "the participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties," it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a nounal participle, whether the thing be allowable or not. Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent. Wells says, "Participles are often used in the sense of nouns; as, 'There was again the smacking of whips, the clattering of hoofs, and the glittering of harness.'—IRVING."—School Gram., p. 154. This is not well stated; because these are participial nouns, and not "participles." What Wells calls "participial nouns," differ from these, and are all spurious, all mongrels, all participles rather than nouns. In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman. His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is proper, and only instructs him not to form it without the sign! It is this: "When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a participle used as a noun, is properly in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted."—School Gram., p. 121. All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner. Those which are called "Correct," are, I think erroneous; and those which are called "False Syntax," the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.

[349] It is remarkable, that Lindley Murray, with all his care in revising his work, did not see the inconsistency of his instructions in relation to phrases of this kind. First he copies Lowth's doctrine, literally and anonymously, from the Doctor's 17th page, thus: "When the thing to which another is said to belong, is expressed by a circumlocution, or by many terms, the sign of the possessive case is commonly added to the last term: as, 'The king of Great Britain's dominions.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 45. Afterwards he condemns this: "The word in the genitive case is frequently PLACED IMPROPERLY: as, 'This fact appears from Dr. Pearson of Birmingham's experiments.' It should be, 'from the experiments of Dr. Pearson of Birmingham.' "—Ib., p. 175. And again he makes it necessary: "A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign at or near the end of the phrase: as, 'Whose prerogative is it? It is the king of Great Britain's;' 'That is the duke of Bridgewater's canal;' " &c.—Ib., p. 276. Is there not contradiction in these instructions?

[350] A late grammarian tells us: "In nouns ending in es and ss, the other s is not added; as, Charles' hat, Goodness' sake."—Wilcox's Gram., p. 11. He should rather have said, "To nouns ending in es or ss, the other s is not added." But his doctrine is worse than his syntax; and, what is remarkable, he himself forgets it in the course of a few minutes, thus: "Decline Charles. Nom. Charles, Poss. Charles's, Obj. Charles."—Ib., p. 12. See the like doctrine in Mulligan's recent work on the "Structure of Language," p. 182.

[351] VAUGELAS was a noted French critic, who died in 1650. In Murray's Grammar, the name is more than once mistaken. On page 359th, of the edition above cited, it is printed "Vangelas"—G. BROWN.

[352] Nixon parses boy, as being "in the possessive case, governed by distress understood;" and girl's, as being "coupled by nor to boy," according to the Rule, "Conjunctions connect the same cases." Thus one word is written wrong; the other, parsed wrong: and so of all his examples above.—G. BROWN.

[353] Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into "transitive, intransitive, and passive;" but whose late edition absurdly make all passives transitive; says, in his third edition, "A transitive verb is a verb that has some noun or pronoun for its object;" (p. 78;) adopts, in his syntax, the old dogma, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case;" (3d Ed., p. 154;) and to this rule subjoins a series of remarks, so singularly fit to puzzle or mislead the learner, and withal so successful in winning the approbation of committees and teachers, that it may be worth while to notice most of them here.

"REM. 1.—A sentence or phrase often supplies the place of a noun or pronoun in the objective case; as, 'You see how few of these men have returned.'"—Wells' s School Gram., "Third Thousand," p. 154; late Ed. §215. According to this, must we not suppose verbs to be often transitive, when not made so by the author's definition? And if "see" is here transitive, would not other forms, such as are told, have been told, or are aware, be just as much so, if put in its place?

"REM. 2.—An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective, when the verb and the noun depending upon it are of kindred signification; as, 'To live a blameless life;'—'To run a race.'"—Ib. Here verbs are absurdly called "intransitive," when, both in fact and by the foregoing definition, they are clearly transitive; or, at least, are, by many teachers, supposed to be so.

"REM. 3.—Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which intransitive verbs are followed by objectives depending upon them; as, 'To look the subject fully in the face.'—Channing. 'They laughed him to scorn.'—Matt. 9:24. 'And talked the night away.'—Goldsmith."— Ib. Here again, verbs evidently made transitive by the construction, are, with strange inconsistency, called "intransitive." By these three remarks together, the distinction between transitives and intransitives must needs be extensively obscured in the mind of the learner.

"REM. 4.—Transitive verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives; as, 'Ask him his opinion;'—'This experience taught me a valuable lesson.'—'Spare me yet this bitter cup.'—Hemans. 'I thrice presented him a kingly crown.'—Shakspeare."—Ib. This rule not only jumbles together several different constructions, such as would require different cases in Latin or Greek, but is evidently repugnant to the sense of many of the passages to which it is meant to be applied. Wells thinks, the practice of supplying a preposition, "is, in many cases, arbitrary, and does violence to an important and well established idiom of the language."—Ib. But how can any idiom be violated by a mode of parsing, which merely expounds its true meaning? If the dative case has the meaning of to, and the ablative has the meaning of from, how can they be expounded, in English, but by suggesting the particle, where it is omitted? For example: "Spare me yet [from] this bitter cup."—"Spare [to] me yet this joyous cup." This author says, "The rule for the government of two objectives by a verb, without the aid of a preposition, is adopted by Webster, Murray, Alexander, Frazee, Nutting, Perley, Goldsbury, J. M. Putnam, Hamlin, Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others."—Ib. Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. Such a rule as this, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited. Lindley Murray's remark, "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case," is applied only to words in apposition, and wrong even there; Perley's rule is only of "Some verbs of asking and teaching;" and Nutting's note, "It sometimes happens that one transitive verb governs two objective cases," is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.

"REM. 5.—Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed in the passive voice to govern a noun or pronoun; as, 'He was asked his opinion.'—Johnson. 'He had been refused shelter.'— Irving."—Ib., p. 155, §215. Passive governing is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of two sorts; the one elliptical, the other solecistical. The former text appears to mean, "He was asked for, his opinion;"—or, "He was asked to give his opinion: the latter should have been, "Shelter had been refused him;"—i.e., "to him." Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are corrected, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells's own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition. Having just given a rule, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this not: "This form of expression is anomalous, and might, in many cases, be improved. Thus, instead of saying, 'He was offered a seat on the council,' it would be preferable to say 'A seat in the council was offered [to] him.'"—Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition to, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to passive government, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also. For the ellipsis of to, before "him," is just as evident in the active expression, "I thrice presented him a kingly crown," as in the passive, "A kingly crown was thrice presented him." It is absurd to deny it in either. Having offset himself, Wells as ingeniously balances his authorities, pro and con; but, the elliptical examples being allowable, he should not have said that I and others "condemn this usage altogether."

"REM. 6.—The passive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb; as 'He was listened to.'—'Nor is this to