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

quality is distinctly personified, and presented to the imagination in the character of a living and intelligent being, there is necessarily a change of the gender of the word; for, whenever personality is thus ascribed to what is literally neuter, there must be an assumption of one or the other sex: as, "The Genius of Liberty is awakened, and springs up; she sheds her divine light and creative powers upon the two hemispheres. A great nation, astonished at seeing herself free, stretches her arms from one extremity of the earth to the other, and embraces the first nation that became so."—Abbé Fauchet. But there is an inferior kind of personification, or of what is called such, in which, so far as appears, the gender remains neuter: as, "The following is an instance of personification and apostrophe united: 'O thou sword of the Lord! how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put thyself up into thy scabbard, rest, and be still! How can it be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given it a charge against Askelon, and against the sea-shore? there hath he appointed it.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 348. See Jer., xlvii, 6.

OBS. 16.—If what is called personification, does not always imply a change of gender and an ascription of sex, neither does a mere ascription of sex to what is literally of no sex, necessarily imply a personification; for there may be sex without personality, as we see in brute animals. Hence the gender of a brute animal personified in a fable, may be taken literally as before; and the gender which is figuratively ascribed to the sun, the moon, or a ship, is merely metaphorical. In the following sentence, nature is animated and made feminine by a metaphor, while a lifeless object bearing the name of Venus, is spoken of as neuter: "Like that conceit of old, which declared that the Venus of Gnidos was not the work of Praxiteles, since nature herself had concreted the boundary surface of its beauty."—Rush, on the Voice, p. xxv.

OBS. 17.—"In personifications regard must be had to propriety in determining the gender. Of most of the passions and moral qualities of man the ancients formed deities, as they did of various other things: and, when these are personified, they are usually made male or female, according as they were gods or goddesses in the pagan mythology. The same rule applies in other cases: and thus the planet Jupiter will be masculine; Venus, feminine: the ocean, Oce=anus, masculine: rivers, months, and winds, the same: the names of places, countries, and islands, feminine."—Churchill's Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 18.—These suggestions are worthy of consideration, but, for the gender which ought to be adopted in personifications, there seems to be no absolute general rule, or none which English writers have observed with much uniformity. It is well, however, to consider what is most common in each particular case, and abide by it. In the following examples, the sex ascribed is not that under which these several objects are commonly figured; for which reason, the sentences are perhaps erroneous:—

"Knowledge is proud that he has learn'd so much; Wisdom is humble that he knows no more."—Cowper.

    "But hoary Winter, unadorned and bare,
    Dwells in the dire retreat, and freezes there;
    There she assembles all her blackest storms,
    And the rude hail in rattling tempests forms."—Addison.

    "Her pow'r extends o'er all things that have breath,
    A cruel tyrant, and her name is Death."—Sheffield.

CASES.

Cases, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the relations of nouns or pronouns to other words.

There are three cases; the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb: as, The boy runs; I run.

The subject of a finite verb is that which answers to who or what before it; as, "The boy runs."—Who runs? "The boy." Boy is therefore here in the nominative case.

The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of property: as, The boy's hat; my hat.

The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative s preceded by an apostrophe; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in s, by adding an apostrophe only: as, singular, boy's; plural, boys';—sounded alike, but written differently.

The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition: as, I know the boy, having seen him at school; and he knows me.

The object of a verb, participle, or preposition, is that which answers to whom or what after it; as, "I know the boy."—I know whom? "The boy." Boy is therefore here in the objective case.

The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in form, being distinguishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by their simple dependence according to the sense.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—The cases, in grammar, are founded on the different relations under which things are represented in discourse; and from which the words acquire correspondent relations; or connexions and dependences according to the sense. In Latin, there are six cases; and in Greek, five. Consequently, the nouns and pronouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,) are varied by many different terminations unknown to our tongue. In English, those modifications or relations which we call cases, belong only to nouns and pronouns; nor are there ever more than three. Pronouns are not necessarily like their antecedents in case.

OBS. 2.—Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in which the nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as being "in the nominative case:" as if, to sustain any one of the relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must necessarily constitute that modification itself. Many also will have participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally "in the objective case:" whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they are, all of them, indeclinable terms; and that, if used in any relation common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as cases. They no more take the nature of cases, than they become nouns or pronouns. Yet Nixon, by assuming that of, with the word governed by it, constitutes a possessive case, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood, all three of the cases. Of the infinitive, he says, "An examination of the first and second methods of parsing this mood, must naturally lead to the inference that it is a substantive; and that, if it has the nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a substantive. The fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in the possessive case: thus, 'A desire to learn;' that is, 'of learning.' When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is analogous to the Case Absolute of a substantive."—Nixon's Parser, p. 83. If the infinitive mood is really a declinable substantive, none of our grammarians have placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause of learning cease to have assailants and underminers among those who profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of English infinitives and participles as being in the possessive case?

OBS. 3.—It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases to fill up the deficits, were for having six in each number; namely, the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else than a terminational inflection, and observing that English nouns have but one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were more than two, the nominative and the possessive. This was certainly an important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or what propriety could there be in making the words, of, and to, and from, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can it be said, that nouns have no cases in English? or what reason can be assigned for making more than three?

OBS. 4.—Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is expedient to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is right. Yet, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every conceivable notion, right or wrong, upon this point. Cardell, with Tooke and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have no cases. Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders.[162] Buchanan, and the author of the old British Grammar, assigned to them one case only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, "In English, nouns have only one case, namely, the genitive, or possessive case."—Latin and Eng. Gram., p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word case: "We use the simple term agent for a noun that acts, and object for the object of an action."—Fowle's True Eng. Gram., Part II, p. 68. Spencer too discards the word case, preferring "form," that he may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns two cases, but neither of these. "Nouns have two Forms, called the Simple and [the] Possessive."—Spencer's E. Gram., p. 30. Webber's Grammar, published at Cambridge in 1832, recognizes but two cases of nouns, declaring the objective to be "altogether superfluous."—P. 22. "Our substantives have no more cases than two."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 14. "A Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative, and the Genitive."—Ellen Devis's Gram., p. 19. Dr. Webster, in his Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831, teaches the same doctrine, but less positively. This assumption has also had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher, Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child's or Latham's English Grammar, 1852, it is said, "The cases in the present English are three:—1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive." But this seems to be meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirms, "The substantives in English have only two out of the three cases."—See pp. 79 and 80. Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency, both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this is like the nominative; yet, finding an objective set after "the adjective like," they will recognize it as "a dative still existing in English!"—See p. 156. Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases, as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in which they had at first so carefully set them!

OBS. 5.—For the true doctrine of three cases, we have the authority of
Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his "Plain and Comp. Grammar,
grounded on True Principles," 1790; also in his "Rudiments of English
Grammar," 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth,
Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill,
Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk,
A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham,
Lennie, Mack, M'Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce,
Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilcox, and I
know not how many others.

OBS. 6.—Dearborn, in 1795, recognized four cases: "the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."—Columbian Gram., pp. 16 and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed "A Classical Grammar of the English Language," published in London in 1829, asserts, that, "Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;" yet he gives them four cases; "the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the vocative." So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London, 1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted "four cases; namely, the nominative, the possessive, the