Part 138 (1/2)

prol 29”--_Lily's Graerunds in _di_ there is soenitive plural: as, 'When, for the sake _of seeing of them_, I went into the foru of new ones_:' ie, new comedies” Here the _of_ which is inserted after the participle to enitive case which is added, forlish writers do now and then adopt this idioous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for _the subject_ of the being or action, but for ould otherwise be _the object_ of the gerund, or of the participle, as overning 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 overns an objective, and hasthe_ (says he) is a Substantive”--_Graerund were ent_, and allowed at the saerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when overn both the possessive case and the objective

But I have before observed that no such analogy appears The following exaerund ent: ”_Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est_--Cic”--_Grant's Lat Gram_, p 236 That is, (as I understand it,) ”But in _whose speaking_ so is reprehended” This seeh Crole 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 soenitive of the patient, or _subject_ [say _object_] of the action, is unquestionable: thus, _studio videndi patrum vestroru of your fathers_] But I recollect no exaerund 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 dicendu, whose speaking_] In truth, these phraseologies appear to e, 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 ora views: ”This double nature of the participle has led towhich,' '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 for, as Dr Cro these two modes of expression as perfectly similar

Suppose I am told, 'Bloo_ Fawcet:' I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Blooreat pleasure But were it said, 'Bloo of_ Fawcet:' I should be led to conclude , when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt fro, about which I have no inforeneral rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing so, 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 oreeably to the exa the participle denotes so incapable of the action the participle expresses, no _ either foreously situate for _the gaining of_ wisdo of_ our wants; and riches, upon _enjoying_ our superfluities' _Addison, Spect_, 464 Yet I cannot think it by any ether different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as _the two nifications_, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr Croing_ them”--_Churchill's Gram_, p 319

OBS 45--The two rammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, _are the saenerally equivalent_, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do ”_not in every instance_ convey the sa” (See Obs 27th above) If Dr Lowth considered the in this entle perfectly and constantly dissilish, substantives derived fronification, that _frequently_ they enerally used, however, in a lish, have the article _always_[426] prefixed to theendo Cicerone_ Cicero But with the substantive, _Delector lectione Ciceronis_, I a 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 Gra 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 y above, by preferring the participial noun: as, ”Noof_ either forhts tooof_ our superfluities”--”Even when noof_ theerundive form is to be preferred on account of its brevity; as, ”By _the_ observing _of_ truth, you will co_ truth, &c”--_Kirkhareatly preferable, though this author did not perceive it ”I thought nothing was to be done byof_ 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 raes_ of the English” Participle are so adroitly suy, and an other in Syntax The author sho the participle differs from a verb, and how from an adjective; yet he neither makes it a separate part of speech, nor tells us hat other it ought to be included In lieu of a general rule for the parsing of _all participles_, he presents the reovern the objective case; as, 'I a praised them_, he sat down'”--_Hiley's Gram_, p 93 This is a rule by which one overned by participles; but, for the usual construction of _participles theraoverned 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_ so, 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 the 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_ _ the philosopher'”--_Ib_, p 94 If this principle is right, my second note below, andBut I am persuaded that the adopters of this rule did not observe how coy which it conde-away of the of the world_, what shall _the receiving of them_ be, but life from the dead?”--_Rom_, xi, 15 Finally, this author rejects the _of_ which most critics insert when a possessive precedes the verbal noun; justifies and prefers the mixed or double construction of the participle; and, consequently, neither wishes nor atteuish the participle from the verbal noun Yet he does not fail to repeat, with some additional inaccuracy, the notion, that, ”What do you think of _? is different _to_ [say _fro_?”--_Ib_, p 94

OBS 47--That English books in general, and the style of even our best writers, should seldom be found exempt froht wonderful, e consider the multiplicity of uses to which words of this sort are put, and the strange inconsistencies into which all our gra this part of syntax It is useless, and worse than useless, to teach for gra that is not true; and no doctrine can be true of which one part palpably oversets an other What has been taught on the present topic, has led ned both for the refutation of the principles which I reject, and for the elucidation and defence of those which are presently to be summed up in notes, or special rules, for the correction of false syntax If rammarians, it is chiefly because these authors contradict the I shall here offer but one exa these strictures to a close: ”When present participles are preceded by an article, or pronoun adjective, they become nouns, and must not be followed by objective pronouns, or nouns without a preposition; as, _the reading of many books wastes the health_

But such nouns, like all others,sufficiently discovered by the following preposition; as, _he was sent to prepare the way, by preaching of repentance_ Also an article, or pronoun adjective,with a participle; as, _his teaching children was necessary_”--_Dr Wilson's Syllabus of English Gram_, p xxx Here the last position of the learned doctor, if it be true, completely annuls the first; or, if the first be true, the lastto Lowth, L Murray, and many others, the second is as bad as either The bishop says, concerning this very example, that by the use of the preposition _of_ after the participle _preaching_, ”the phrase is rendered _obscure_ and _a of it, in its present for_ repentance, or on that subject;' whereas the sense intended is, 'by publishi+ng the covenant of repentance, and declaring repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God'”--_Lowth's Gra _of_ repentance;' or, by _preaching_ repentance”--_Murray's Gram_, p 193

NOTES TO RULE XX

NOTE I--Active participles have the saovernment as the verbs from which they are derived; the preposition _of_, therefore, should never be used after the participle, when the verb does not require it Thus, in phrases like the following, _of_ is i _of_ repentance;”--”They left beating _of_ Paul”

NOTE II--When a transitive participle is converted into a noun, _of_ ; as, ”So that there was _no withstanding of_ him”--_Walker's Particles_ p 252 ”The cause of their salvation doth not soof_ ton's Works_, Vol ii, p 91 ”Faith is _the receiving of_ Christ with the whole soul”--_Baxter_ ”In _thy pouring-out of_ thy fury upon Jerusalem”--_Ezekiel_, ix, 8

NOTE III--When the insertion of the word _of_, to complete the conversion of the transitive participle into a noun, produces ay must be chosen Exa place of_ the other past action”--_Kirkham's Graular construction; and if we say, ”_prior_ to the taking _of place of_ the other,” we make the jumble still worse Say therefore, ”Because the action took place _before_ the other past action;”--or, ”Because the action took place _previously_ to the other past action”

NOTE IV--When participles become nouns, their adverbs should either become adjectives, or be taken as parts of such nouns, written as coreeable, a greater change should bea sentence, depends very rammatical construction”--_Co _of_ a sentence,”

&c 2 ”Elope _away_, or private departure”--_Webster's El Spelling-Book_ p 102 Write ”_running-away_” as one word 3 ”If they [Milton's descriptions] have any _faults_, it is their _alluding too frequently_ to , and to fables of antiquity”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 451 Say, ”If they have any _fault_, it is _that they allude_ too frequently,” &c

NOTE V--When the participle is followed by an adjective, its conversion into a noun appears to be improper; because the construction of the adjective becomes anomalous, and its relation doubtful: as, ”When we speak of _'a deceitful_'”--_Murray's Graht to be, ”When we speak of _a deceitful;” but Dr Blair, froinally came, appears to have written it thus: ”When we speak of _a deceitful”--LECT xvi, p 155 This is _inconsistent with itself_; for one noun is possessive, and the other, objective NOTE VI--When a compound participle is converted into a noun, the hyphen seeuity; but such coeneral better to avoid thee in the expression Exa healed_ of a wound, presupposeth the plaster or salve: but not, on the contrary; for the application of the plaster presupposeth not _the being healed_”--_Barclays Works_, Vol i, p 143 The phrase, ”_the being healed_” ought to -healed_, or _the healing received_, which is what the writer intended But the siht have been used in the latter sense; for, in participial nouns, the distinction of _voice_ and of _tense_ are coarded

NOTE VII--A participle should not be used where the infinitive mood, the verbal noun, a common substantive, or a phrase equivalent, will better express the _ an accent on the second syllable of these words, would entirely derange them”--_Murray's Gram_, Vol i, p 239 Say rather, ”But, _to place_ an accent--But _the_ placing _of_ an accent--or, But an _accent placed_ on the second syllable of these words, would entirely derange the_ in that case”--_Ib_, Vol ii, p 21 Say, ”To require _the read it”--_West's Letters_, p 216 Say, ”She regrets _that she has not_ read it” Or, ”She _does not regret that she has_ read it” For the text is equivocal, and admits either of these senses

NOTE VIII--A participle used for a nominative after _be, is, was_, &c, produces a construction which is more naturally understood to be a compound form of the verb; and which is therefore not well adapted to the sense intended, when one tells what so is, was, or _ animals”--_O B Peirce's Gram_, p 365

Say, ”Whose business _it_ is, _to shoe_ ani _of_ ani_ the deposite to his own use”--_Murray's Key_, ii, p 200 Say rather, ”This was in fact _a_ converting _of_ the deposite to his own use”--_Ib_

NOTE IX--Verbs of _preventing_ should be _, nor what are called substantive phrases, but the objective case of a noun or pronoun; and if a participle follow, it ought to be governed by the preposition _from_: as, ”But the admiration due to so e_ some other particulars in which he has failed”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 438 Exa hiersoll's Gram_, p 150

Say,--”to prevent _his escape_” 2 ”To prevent _its being connected_ with the nearest noun”--_Churchill's Gra connected,” &c 3 ”To prevent _it bursting_ out with open violence”--_Robertson's A out,” &c 4 ”To prevent _their injuring orof_ others”--_Brown's Divinity_, p 26 Say rather, ”To prevent _the _others_”

NOTE X--In the use of participles and of verbal nouns, the leading word in sense should always beword in the construction; and where there is reason to doubt whether the possessive case or soht to come before the participle, it is better to reject both, and vary the expression Examples: ”Any personto _foreigners conversing_ in a language [which] he does not understand”--_Churchill's Gra_ with negatives”--_Ib_, p 367 These forht be varied, by the insertion of ”_which abounds_” for ”_abounding_” But the celebrated exa up_ her train,”

or the ”_lady's holding up_ her train,”--the ”_person dis_ his servant,”--the ”_horse running_ to-day,” or the ”_horse's running_ to-day,”--and eable, are equally bad in both foreneral, however construed, should have a clear reference to the proper subject of the being, action, or passion The following sentence is therefore faulty: ”By _establishi+ng_ good laws, our _peace_ is secured”--_Russell's Gra the _establisher_ of the laws, these authors should have said, ”By _establishi+ng_ good lae_ secure our peace” ”_There will be no danger_ of _spoiling_ their faces, or of _gaining_ converts”--_Murray's Key_, ii, p 201 This sentence is to ible If the context were known, there , ”_They_ will be in no danger of spoiling their faces,” &c ”The law is annulled, in the very _act of its being made_”--_O B Peirce's Gram_, p 267 ”The _act of_ MAKING _a law_,” is a phrase intelligible; but, ”the _act of its_ BEING MADE,” is a downright solecism--a positive absurdity

NOTE XII--A needless or indiscriminate use of participles for nouns, or of nouns for participles, is inelegant, if not iht therefore to be avoided Exa_”-- _Murray's Graersoll's_, 71 ”The preposition _of_, frequently i to_”--_Cooper's Pl

and Pr Gram_, p 137 Say, ”_Of_ frequently denotes possession, or _the relation of property_” ”England perceives the folly _of the denying of_ such concessions”--_Nixon's Parser_, p 149 Expunge _the_ and the last _of_, that _denying_ may stand as a participle