Part 137 (1/2)

1 After verbs of DESISTING; as, ”The Cryer used to proclai_”--_Harris's Her_ love to Lalage”--_Philological Museuround of expediency”--_The Friend_, iv, 35 ”And yet architects never _give over atte_ to reconcile these two incoive over seeking_ and _praying_ for it”--_N Y Observer_ ”Do not _leave off seeking_”--_President Edwards_ ”Then Satan _hath done flattering_ and _co_”--_Job_, xxix, 9 ”Principes _cessabant loqui_”--_Vulgate_ Here it would be better to say, ”The princes refrained _fro” But Murray says, ”_From_ seems to be superfluous after _forbear_: as, 'He could not forbear fro the pope,' &c”--_Octavo Gram_, p 203 But _”forbear to appoint”_ would be a better correction; for this verb is often followed by the infinitive; as, _”Forbear to insinuate”_--_West's Letters_, p 62

”And he _forbare to go_ forth”--_1 Saive over”_ or _”not to leave off,”_ is in fact the say of other languages, that after verbs of continuing the participle is not an object of governh possibly it may be so, in these instances, which are soiving_ an account of them”--_Tooke's Diversions of Purley_, i, 251 I question the propriety of this construction; and yet, _”oive”_ seems still more objectionable Better, ”He _oive_, or _forbears to give_, any account of the, ”for the use he hasto insert_ their names”--_Octavo Gra to insert,”_ appears to uous, because there are well-known naht not to have omitted either species wholly, as he did ”Yet they absolutely _refuse doing so_, one with another”--_Harris's Hermes_, p

264 Better, _”refuse to do so”_ ”I had as repeatedly _declined_ going”--_Leigh Hunt's Byron_, p 15

3 After verbs of PREVENTING; as, ”Our sex are happily _prevented fro_ in these turbulent scenes”--_West's Letters to a Lady_, p 74

”To prevent our frail natures _fro_ into bye paths [write _by-paths_] of error”--_Ib_, p 100 ”Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 99; _Murray's Gram_, p 303; _Jah very co: because its most natural interpretation is, ”Prudence iht to have known enough to say, ”Prudence prevents _us fro improperly” ”This, however, doth not _hinder_ pronunciation _to borrow_ fro”--_Kames, El of Crit_, ii, 70 Here the infinitive is used,froed thus, _”fro”_ ”'This by no means _hinders_ the book _to be_ a useful one'--_Geddes_ It should be, _'fro'_”--_Churchill's Graht have _avoided treating_ of the origin of ideas”--_Tooke's Diversions_, i, 28 ”We _ nonsense on these subjects”--_Ca_ at any time ostentatious and affected”--_Blair's Rhet_, p

233 ”Here I cannot _avoid _[420] the assistance I have received”--_Churchill's Gra_ others into tearden should in so_ nature”--_Kames, El of Crit_, ii, 251 ”I can pro_”--_Ib_, i, 36 ”We cannot _help being_ of opinion”--ENCYC

BRIT _Murray's Gra_ of opinion”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 311 ”I cannot _help hes Spect_, No 554 ”These would so catched_ away”--_Steele_ ”Carleton very narrowly _escaped being taken_”--_Gri taken;”--or, ”_escaped capture_”

OBS 19--In sentences like the following, the participle seems to be i_ it”--”I re_ him” Better, ”I intend _to do_ it”--”I re to eneral overn participles If there are any proper instances of such govern_ or _avoiding_ And even here the analogy of General Graives countenance to a different solution; as, ”They _left beating of_ Paul”--_Acts_, xxi, 32 Better, ”They _left beating_ Paul;”--or, ”They _quit beating_ Paul” Greek, ”[Greek: Epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon]”

Latin, ”Cessaverunt _percutientes_ Paulum”--_Montanus_ ”Cessarunt _coedere_ Pauluate_

It is true, the English participle in _ing_ differs in some respects from that which usually corresponds to it in Latin or Greek; it has more of a substantive character, and is coerund If this difference does not destroy the arguy, the opinion is still just, that _left_ and _quit_ are here _intransitive_, and that the participle _beating_ relates to the pronoun _they_ Such is unequivocally the construction of the Greek text, and also of the literal Latin of Arias Montanus But, to thewill not be apt to suggest itself: because, at first sight, the verbs appear to be transitive, and the participle in _ing_ has nothing to prove it an adjunct of the nominative, and not the object of the verb--unless, indeed, the mere fact that it is a participle, is proof of this

OBS 20--Our great Co this construction, or not observing what verbs admit of it, or require it, has very unskillfully laid it down as a rule, that, ”The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a _substantive phrase_ in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb, _expressed or understood_: as, 'By _pro but little_, we beco himself too severely_'”--_Octavo Gram_, p

194[421] This very popular author seeoverned in English by prepositions And yet he knew, and said, that ”prepositions do not, _like articles and pronouns_, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive”--_Ibid_ This he avouches in the saives that ”nature” to a participle and its adverb! For, by a false comma after _much_, he cuts his first ”_substantive phrase_” absurdly in two; and doubtless supposes a false ellipsis of _by_ before the participle _perfor the second example, some notice has already been taken, in Observations 4th and 5th on Rule 5th Though he pretends that the whole phrase is in the objective case, ”the truth is, the assertion grammatically affects the first word only;” which in one aspect he regards as a noun, and in an other as a participle: whereas he hie, had adopted froainst treating words in _ing_, ”as if they were of an _amphibious_ species, partly nouns and partly _verbs_;” that is, ”partly nouns and partly _participles_;” for, according to Murray, Lowth, and many others, participles are verbs The term, ”_substantive phrase_,” itself a solecism, was inventedLowth again, the great Cohtly put together;” and, surely, if we have a well-digested systeether, ularly parsed by it But how can one indivisible word be consistently made two different parts of speech at once? And is not this the situation of every transitive participle that is made either the _subject_ or the _object_ of a verb?

Adjuncts never alter either the nature or the construction of the words on which they depend; and participial nouns differ from participles in both

The forenerally attribute theerund is ”a kind of verbal noun, partaking of the nature of a participle”--_Webster's Dict_ ”A gerund is a participial noun, of the neuter gender, and singular-nu no vocative, construed like a substantive, and governing the case of its verb”--_Grant's Lat Graerund thus defined, there is an appearance of ancient classical authority for that ”amphibious species” of words of which so _, when governed by a preposition, undoubtedly corresponds very nearly, both in sense and construction, to this Latin gerund; the principal difference being, that the one is declined, like a noun, and the other is not The analogy, however, is but laular constructions in which the participle is erund of the nominative case may be made the subject of a verb in Latin; but we do not translate it by the English participle, but rather by the infinitive, or still oftener by the verb with the auxiliary _must_: as, ”_Vivendum est mihi recte_, I must live well”--_Grant's L Gralish than the nearer version, ”Living correctly is necessary foris to overn the genitive like a noun, or ever stand as the direct object of a transitive verb, except in sorammarians dispute For, in fact, to explain this species of words, has puzzled the Latin grah the former do not appear to have fallen into those palpable self-contradictions which embarrass the instructions of the latter

OBS 22--Dr Adalish beco_ the article to it, and then it is always to be construed with the preposition _of_; as, 'He is e of_ letters:' but it is i of_ letters'”--_Latin and English Graht by Lowth, Priestley, Murray, Comly, Chandler, and many others; overn the possessive case; and they ht as well have added all such as are made either the subjects or the objects of verbs, and such as are put for nominatives after verbs neuter But Crombie, Allen, Churchill, S S Greene, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and some others, teach that participles may perfor the regimen and adjuncts of participles This doctrine, too, Murray and his copyists absurdly endeavour to reconcile with the other, by resorting to the idle fiction of ”_substantive phrases_” endued with all these powers: as, ”_His being at enmity with Caesar_ was the cause of perpetual discord”--_Crombie's Treatise_, p 237; _Churchill's Gra it to supersede_ the use of a point”-- _Churchill's Granorant _reader's confounding the tels_ in pronunciation”--_Ib_, p 375 It is lish as this Say, rather, ”_His enmity with Caesar_ was the cause of perpetual discord”--”An other fault is _the allowing of_ it to _supersede_ the use of a point”--”To be sure, there is a possibility _that_ sonorant _reader may confound_ the tels, in pronunciation”

OBS 23--In French, the infinitive is governed by several different prepositions, and the gerundive by one only, the preposition _en_,--which, however, is sometimes suppressed; as, ”_en passant, en faisant,--il alloit courant_”--_Traite des Participes_, p 2 In English, the gerundive is governed by several different prepositions, and the infinitive by one only, the preposition _to_,--which, in like manner, is sometimes suppressed; as, ”_to pass, to do,--I saw him run_” The difficulties in the syntax of the French participle in _ant_, which corresponds to ours in _ing_, are apparently as great in thelish word presents; but they result from entirely different causes, and chiefly fro the participle with the verbal adjective, which is forerundive is now, in either language, of little or no consequence, since in lish, both are indeclinable For this reason, I have framed the syntactical rule for participles so as to include under that naoverned by a preposition The great difficulty with us, is, to deterht not, to be allowed to assu those of a participle, and without becolish participle with the verbal or participial adjective, a of a word in parsing; or perhaps an occasional a citation: ”I am resolved, 'let the newspapers say what they please of _canvassing_ beauties, _haranguing_ toasts, and __ demireps,' not to believe one syllable”--_Jane West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p 74 From these words, it is scarcely possible to find out, even with the help of the context whether these three sorts of ladies are spoken of as the canvassers, haranguers, and ued, and mobbed If the prolixity and multiplicity of these observations transcend the reader's patience, let him consider that the questions at issue cannot be settled by the brief enunciation of loose individual opinions, but ies and facts_ that bear upon theuishi+ng the participle frora his _Graht proper to _enlarge_ his instructions on this head, and to publish theh we have it on his own authority, that the rule for participles had already given rise to a greater number of dissertations and particular treatises than any other point in French grammar

OBS 24--A participle construed after the noeneral equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions For the leading word in sense, should not besentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: ”He felt his _strength's_ declining”--”He was sensible of his _strength_ declining” In the forth_ should be in the objective case, governed by _felt_; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by _declining_ Thus: ”He felt his _strength_ declining;” ie, ”_felt it decline_”--”He was sensible of his _strength's_ declining;” ie, ”_of its decline_” These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of eable This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs 12th and 13th on Rule 4th But the false and discordant instructions which our gra possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to beword in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place

OBS 25--Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scherammatical science And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a syste with Horne Tooke, that the sa to different parts of speech, I have already alluded towords, not according to their derivationto their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of _verbs, participles_, and _nouns_, it is no uncoether; and that too to a very great extent, and by sorauish the inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W Allen and T O Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English graives no formal definition, but he represents it as ”_a form_, in which _the action_ denoted by _the verb_ is capable of being joined _to a noun_ as _its quality_, or accident”--_Churchill's New Graain he says, ”That the participle is _a mere mode of the verb_ is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted”--_Ib_, p 242 While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perfor, ”Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becooverns a possessive case: as, 'He who has _the co_, or his _wife's squandering_'”--_Ib_, p

144 The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the _s_, not at the end, but in the s-in_, (an obsolete expression for _revenues_,) is not tords, but one Nor are _ga_, to be here called participles, but nouns Yet, a all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles _beco exa that the nominatives to ”_is_” and ”_ is_ the best exercise, though riding _may be_ h his book is professedly an ara the distinguishi+ng of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen

OBS 26--Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's--and no worse than what the reader lish Grammar now in use This author's fault is not soor of comprehension, as of order and discrimination We see in him, that it is possible for a lish authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter lish participle Like e this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but co absurdity: ”The participles _are adjectives_ derived fro pursued_”--_Elements of E Gram_, p

62 This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but es the whole of the fornized the latter as a subdivision: ”An adjective shows the _quality_ of a thing Adjectives may be reduced to five classes: 1 Common--2 Proper--3 Numeral--4 pronominal--5

Compound”--_Ib_, p 47 Now, if ”participles are adjectives,” to which of these five classes do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth class, without which this distribution is false and inco_ father; an _approved_ copy” The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun But says our author, ”Participles, as si_ father; an _approved_ copy;--as parts of the verb, they have the saovern the pleasures_ of past years, joined their party”--_Ib_, p 170 What confusion is this! a complete juain: ”Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early _rising_ is conducive to health; I like _writing_; we depend on _seeing_ you”--_Ib_, p 171 Here _rising_ and _writing_ are nouns; but _seeing_ is a participle, because it is active and governs _you_, Coain he proceeds: ”To participles thus used,chosen_ did not prevent disorderly behaviour' Bp To how to pass_ our vacant hours' Seed”--_Ib_, p 171

These exalish Say rather, ”The _state of election_ did not prevent disorderly behaviour”--”The _want of soain proceeds: ”If a noun li of a participle thus used, that noun is put in the genitive; as, your _father's co_ is a noun, and no participle at all But the author has a enitive;” (_ibid_;) and he means to approve of possessives before active participles: as, ”So received the words_ through a French ain to that difficult and apparently unresolvable probleerundive character, can, or cannot, govern the possessive case; a question, about which, the more a man examines it, the more heovernraph on participles: ”An active participle, preceded by _an article_ or by _a genitive_, is elegantly followed by the preposition _of_, before the substantive which follows it; as, _the_ co _of_ the army was unexpected”--_Allen's Gra_ and _quitting_ are improperly called active participles, frouished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever And this coance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition And he iuity_, the expression _estion is left without illustration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray's remarks, in which it is said: ”A phrase in which the article precedes the _present participle_ and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the sa as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition 'He expressed the pleasure he had _in the hearing of_ the philosopher,' is _capable of a different sense_ fro_ the philosopher'”--_Murray's Octavo Graersoll's_, 199; and others Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word _hearing_ a ”present participle;” and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful couous: whereas the phrase, ”in the hearing _of the philosopher_,” ;” and not, ”in hearing the philosopher,” or, ”in hearing _of_ the philosopher” But the true question is, would it be right to say, ”He expressed the pleasure he had in the _philosopher's_ hearing _him_?” For here it would be _equivocal_ to say, ”in the philosopher's hearing _of_ hi, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and co received _of_ the words through a French ance; and if it be not an a worse The expression, then, ”ht without the _of_, though contrary to the author's rule for elegance?

OBS 28--The observations which have been made on this point, under the rule for the possessive case, while they show, to some extent, the inconsistencies in doctrine, and the improprieties of practice, into which the difficulties of the raht ofwithout distinction the characteristics of nouns and participles in the saht sufficient to prove this custo; nor do they pretend to have fully established the dogma, that such a construction is in no instance admissible They shoever, that possessives before participles are _seldom_ to be approved; and perhaps, in the present instance, the ht be quite as well expressed by a coular participial noun: as, ”Soularities arise fro of_ the words--through a French medium” But there are some examples which it is not easy to aes of youth have very ed_, or _left_ to themselves”--_Friends' N E

Discipline_, p 13 And there are instances too, of a similar character, in which the possessive case cannot be used For exa_ a sufficient proof”--_Ca_ the fact of the case, &c”--_Butlers analogy_, p

137 ”There is express historical or traditional evidence, as ancient as history, of the _systeht_ s_ in it _appearing_ to men foolishness”--_Ib_, p 175 ”As to the consistency of the __ themselves to those called free-masons”--_N E

Discip_, p 51 ”In _either of these cases happening_, the _person charging_ is at liberty to bring the es_ now _re its efficacy froious World_, Vol ii, p 235 ”We have no idea of any certain _portion of ti_ between the ti of it”--_Priestley's Gram_, p 33: _Murray's_, i, 70; _E example therefore, however the participleword in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: ”The reason and ti_ man”--_Brown's Divinity_, p xxii Many writers would here be satisfied with n; as does Churchill, in the following exarans 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 ungra 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 rans of tense”

OBS 29--It is certain that the noun or pronoun which ”li 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 _ one sound”--_Allen's Gra_ would here be better than _for, _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 exa_ the genitive of the agent' Dr Croht have been prevented by _parents doing_ their duty”--_N E Discipline_, p