Part 143 (2/2)
OBS 9--_As_ frequently has the force of a _relative pronoun_, and when it evidently sustains the relation of a case, it ought to be called, and generally _is_ called, a pronoun, rather than a conjunction; as, ”Avoid such _as are_ vicious,”--_Anon_ ”But as many _as received_ him,”
&c--_John_, i, 12 ”We have reduced the terms into as small a number _as was_ consistent with perspicuity and distinction”--_Brightland's Gram_, p ix Here _as_ represents a noun, and while it serves to connect the two parts of the sentence, it is also the subject of a verb These being the true characteristics of a relative pronoun, it is proper to refer the word to that class But when a clause or a sentence is the antecedent, it is better to consider the _as_ a conjunction, and to supply the pronoun _it_, if the writer has not used it; as, ”He is angry, _as [it] appears_ by this letter” Horne Tooke says, ”The truth is, that AS is _also an article_; and (however and whenever used in English) means the same as _It_, or _That_, or _Which_”--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol i, p 223 But what definition he would give to _”an article_,” does not appear
OBS 10--In soht to be reckoned a pronoun, or ought rather to be parsed as a conjunction after which a nominative is understood; as, ”He then read the conditions _as follow_”--”The conditions are _as follow_”--_Nutting's Gram_, p 106
”The principal evidences on which this assertion is grounded, are _as follow_”--_Gurney's Essays_, p 166 ”The Quiescent verbs are _as follow_”--_Pike's Heb Lex_, p 184 ”The other numbers are duplications of these, and proceed _as follow_”--_Dr Murray's Hist of Lang_, Vol ii, p 35 ”The most eminent of the kennel are bloodhounds, which lead the van, and are _as follow_”--_Steele, Tattler_, No 62 ”His words are _as follow_”--_Spect_, No 62 ”The words are _as follow_”--_Addison, Spect_, No 513 ”The objections that are raised against it as a tragedy, are _as follow_”--_Gay, Pref to What d' ye call it_ ”The particulars are _as follow_”--_Bucke's Gralish are _as follow_”--_Ward's Gram_, p 81 In all these instances, one may suppose the final clause to_as_ to be a pronoun, one may conceive it to mean, ”_such_ as follow” But soular verb, ”_as follows_” Hear Caht undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed or understood: and when no noularly be construed with the verb, it ought to be considered as ie _favour_ [say _favours_] this reement were _as follows_;' and not '_as follow_' A few late writers have inconsiderately adopted this last forh a ht to say, 'I shall consider his censures so far only as _concerns_ my friend's conduct;' and not 'so far as _concern_'”--_Philosophy of Rhet_, p 229 It is too much to say, at least of one of these sentences, that there is no noularly construed In the former, the word _as_ may be said to be a plural nominative; or, if ill have this to be a conjunction, the pronoun _they_, representing _conditions_, ularly supplied, as above In the latter, indeed, _as_ is not a pronoun; because it refers to ”_so far_,” which is not a noun But the sentence is _bad English_; because the verb _concern_ or _concerns_ is improperly left without a nominative Say therefore, 'I shall consider his censures so far only as _they concern_ my friend's conduct;'--or, 'so far only as _ is an other exa; because, with an adverb for its antecedent, _as_ is ht therefore to be uttered _as quickly as is_ consistent with distinct articulation”--_Sheridan's Elocution_, p 76 Say rather, ”They ought therefore to be uttered _with as much rapidity_ as is consistent with distinct articulation”
OBS 11--Lindley Murray was so much puzzled with Tooke's notion of _as_, and Campbell's doctrine of the _impersonal verb_, that he has expressly left his pupils to hesitate and doubt, like hiht to say ”_as follows_” or ”_as follohen the preceding noun is plural; or--to furnish an alternative, (if they choose it,) he shows the soins thus: ”_Gra the propriety of the following uments advanced were nearly _as follows_;' 'the positions were, _as appears_, incontrovertible'”-- _Murray's Graestions fro anony these, I would here say of the two exaiven, that they are not parallel instances For, ”_as follows_,”
refers to what the argus themselves, considered plurally, and iht rather to have been, ”_as follow_,” or, ”_as they here follow_” But, ”_as appears_” means ”_as it appears_,” or ”_as the case now appears_;” and one of these plain modes of expression would have beenbut a conjunction
OBS 12--”The diversity of sentiment on this subject,” says L Murray, ”and the respectability of the different opponents, will naturally induce _the readers_ to pause and reflect, before they decide”--_Octavo Gram_, p 147 The equivalent expressions by means of which he proposes to evade at last the dileuu nature;”--”The following are nearly the arguuments advanced were nearly those which follow:”--”These, or nearly these, were the arguments advanced;”--”The positions were such as appear incontrovertible;”--”It appears that the positions were incontrovertible;”
--”That the positions were incontrovertible, is apparent;”--”The positions were apparently incontrovertible;”--”In appearance, the positions were incontrovertible”--_Ibid_ If to shun the expression will serve our turn, surely here are ways enough! But to those who ”pause and reflect” with the intention _to decide_, I would co example: ”Reconciliation was offered, on conditions as moderate as _were_ consistent with a permanent union”--_Murray's Key_, under Rule 1 Here Murray supposes ”_was_” to be wrong, and accordingly changes it to ”_were_,” by the Rule, ”A verb ree with its nominative case in number and person” But the amendment is a pointed rejection of Campbell's ”impersonal verb,” or verb which ”has no noht here, the rhetorician's respectable authority vouches only for a catalogue of errors Again, if this verb ree with its noht to be, the no may perhaps be better expressed thus:--”on conditions as moderate _as any that were_ consistent with a permanent union”
OBS 13--A late writer expresses his decision of the foregoing question thus: ”Of all the different opinions on a grammatical subject, which have arisen in the literary world, there scarcely appears one_as follows_ to be an impersonal verb, and to be correctly used in such sentences as this 'The conditions were _as follows_' Nay, we are told that, ”A few late writers have adopted this form, 'The conditions were as follow,' _inconsiderately_;” and, to prove this charge of inconsiderateness, the following sentence is brought forward: 'I shall consider his censure [_censures_ is the word used by Campbell and by Murray] so far only _as concern_ my friend's conduct'
which should be, it is added, '_as concerns_, and not _as concern_' If analogy, simplicity, or syntactical authority, is of any value in our resolution of the sentence, 'The conditions were as follows,' the word _as_ is as evident a relative as language can afford It is undoubtedly equivalent to _that_ or _which_, and relates to its antecedent _those_ or _such_ understood, and should have been the nominative to the verb _follow_; the sentence, in its present for inaccurate The second sentence is by no means a parallel one The word _as_ is a conjunction; and though it has, as a relative, a reference to its antecedent _so_, yet in its capacity of a mere conjunction, it cannot possibly be the nominative case to any verb It should be, '_it concerns_' Whenever _as_ relates to an _adverbial_ antecedent; as in the sentence, '_So_ far _as_ it concerns me,' it is merely a conjunction; but when it refers to an _adjective_ antecedent; as in the sentence, 'The business is _such as_ concerns me;' it must be a relative, and susceptible of case, whether its antecedent is expressed or understood; being, in fact, the nominative to the verb _concerns_”--_Nixon's Parser_, p 145 It will be perceived by the preceding re it to be in all respects well said, though it is ard to the point at issue, I shall add but one critical authority ray: I am inclined, however, to concur with those who prefer '_as follow_'”--_Crombie, on Etym and Synt_, p 388
OBS 14--The conjunction _that_ is frequently understood; as, ”It is seldom [_that_] their counsels are listened to”--_Robertson's Ara us”--_Lowth's Gram, Pref_, p vi ”The Sportsman believes [_that_] there is Good in his Chace [chase]”--_Harris's Hermes_, p 296
”Thou warnst me [_that_] I have done amiss; I should have earlier looked to this”--_Scott_
OBS 15--After _than_ or _as_, connecting the terms of a comparison, there is usually an ellipsis of some word or words The construction of the words employed may be seen, when the ellipsis is supplied; as, ”They are stronger _than we_” [are]--_Numb_, xiii 31 ”Wisdom is better _than weapons_ of war” [are]--_Eccl_, ix, 18 ”He does nothing who endeavours to do more _than_ [what] _is allowed_ to hureater _than_ [what] _I can bear_”--_Gen_, iv, 13 ”Ralph gave hiave hiave hiave] _me_”_--Ibid_ ”Revelation, surely, was never intended for such _as he_” [is]--_Campbell's Four Gospels_, p iv ”Let such as _him_ sneer if they will”--_Liberator_, Vol ix, p 182 Here _hi to Rule 2d, because the text speaks of such as _he is_ or _was_ ”'You were as innocent of it _as ht to be _I_: that is, _as I was, as I did_”--_Churchill's Gram_, p 352
”Rather let such poor souls _as you_ and _I_ Say that the holidays are drawing nigh”--_Swift_
OBS 16--The doctrine above stated, of ellipses after _than_ and _as_, proceeds on the supposition that these words _are conjunctions_, and that they connect, not particular words merely, but sentences, or clauses It is the corammarians, and is doubtless liable to fewer objections than any other theory that ever has been, or ever can be, devised in lieu of it Yet _as_ is not always a conjunction; nor, when it is a conjunction, does it always connect sentences; nor, when it connects sentences, is there always an ellipsis; nor, when there is an ellipsis, is it always quite certain what that ellipsis is All these facts have been made plain, by observations that have already been bestowed on the word: and, according to sos may severally be affirmed of the word _than_ But enerally, if not always, to connect _sentences_
Johnson and Webster, in their dictionaries, mark it for an _adverb_; and the latter says of it, ”This word signifies also _then_, both in English and Dutch”--_Webster's Amer Dict_, 8vo, _w Than_ But what he lish of this age, is _than_ equivalent to _then_, or _then_ to _than_ The ancient practice of putting _then_ for _than_, is now entirely obsolete;[434] and, as we have no other term of the same import, most of our expositors merely explain _than_ as ”a particle used in comparison”--_Johnson, Worcester, Maunder_ Some absurdly define it thus: ”THAN, _adv_ Placed in comparison”--_Walker_, (Rhy to this definition, _than_ would be a _participle_! But, since an express comparison necessarily implies a connexion between different terms, it cannot well be denied that _than_ is a connective word; wherefore, not to detain the reader with any profitless controversy, I shall take it for granted that this word is always a conjunction That it always connects sentences, I do not affirm; because there are instances in which it is difficult to suppose it to connect anything ement _than_ wit is more sail _than_ ballast”--_Penn's Maxims_ ”With no less eloquence _than_ freedom 'Pari eloquentia _ac_ libertate' _Tacitus_”--_Walker's Particles_, p 200 ”Any comparison between these two classes of writers, cannot be other _than_ vague and loose”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 347 ”This _far ences”--_Ib_, p 200
”Remember Handel? Who that was not born Deaf as the dead to hare?”--_Cowper_
OBS 17--When any two declinable words are connected by _than_ or _as_, they are ale, to be put in the _same case_, whether we suppose an ellipsis in the construction of the latter, or not; as, ”My _Father_ is greater than _I_”--_Bible_
”What do _ye_ more than _others_?”--_Matt_, v, 47 ”More _men_ than _women_ were there”--_Murray's Graer _men_ as _brethren_”--_1 Tim_, v, 1 ”I would that all _men_ were even as _I_ myself”--_1 Cor_, vii, 7 ”Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?”--_John_, xxi, 15 This last text is uous_; so that some readers will doubt whether it means--”more than _thou lovest these_,” or--”more than _these love me_” Is not this because there is an _ellipsis_ in the sentence, and such a one as inal too is aapas ate and of Montanus: ”Siis me _plus his_?” Wherefore Beza expressed it differently: ”Siis me plus _quam hi_?” The French Bible has it: ”Simon, fils de Jona, m'ailish should rather have been, ”Lovest thou ree, in Greek, is said to govern the genitive case; in Latin, the ablative: that is, the genitive or the ablative is so particle corresponding to _than_, and without producing a compound sentence We have examples in the phrases, ”[Greek: pleion touton]” and ”_plus his_,” above
Of such a construction our language admits no real example; that is, no exact parallel But we have an imitation of it in the phrase _than whom_, as in this hackneyed example from Milton:
”Which, when Beelzebub perceived, _than whoher sat,” &c--_Paradise Lost_, B ii, l 300
The objective, _whom_, is here preferred to the nominative, _who_, because the Latin ablative is commonly rendered by the former case, rather than by the latter: but this phrase is no ra the objective case for a version of the ablative absolute If the iure of syntax_--an obvious exae, which is co of one case for an other
OBS 19--This use of _whorammarians; many of whom have thence concluded that _than_ must needs be, at least in this instance, a _preposition_,[435] and some have extended the principle beyond this, so as to include _than which, than whose_ with its following noun, and other nominatives which they will have to be objectives; as, ”I should see is ton, _than whose faht earthly can be purer”--_Peirce's Graiven him more than _I_ You have sent her asSyntax_, p 116 These last two sentences are erroneously called by their author, ”_false syntax_;” not indeed with a notion that _than_ and _as_ are prepositions, but on the false supposition that the preposition _to_ must necessarily be understood between the verbs and the pronouns _hiiven hilish; the last clause of which plainly iven him_” And, ”You have sent her as much as _he_,” will of course be understood to mean--”as much as he _has sent her_;” but here, because the auxiliary iht have been as well to have inserted it: thus, ”_You have_ sent her as much as _he has_” ”She reviles you as h found, with the foregoing, a Buchanan's examples of ”false syntax”
OBS 20--Murray's twentieth Rule of syntax avers, that, ”When the qualities of different things are cooverned_ by the conjunction _than_ or _as_, but agrees with the verb,” &c--_Octavo Graer's_, 71; _Sreat Compiler and most of his followers say, that _than whom_ ”is an exception”
or ”_seems to form_ an exception;” to which they add, that, ”the phrase is, however, avoided by the best modern writers”--_Murray_, i, 215 This latter assertion Russell conceives to be untrue: the foreneral rule,” says of it, (with no great consistency,) ”Here the conjunction _than_ has certainly the force of a preposition, and supplies its place by governing the relative”--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram_, p 104 But this is hardly an instance to which one would apply the ulam_”--_Octavo Gra power of a preposition, is a very wide step, and quite toothe line which separates these parts of speech one from the other
OBS 21--Churchill says, ”If there be no ellipsis to supply, as sometimes happens when a pronoun relative occurs after _than_; the relative is to be put in the _objective case absolute_: as, 'Alfred, _than whoned, deserves to be held up as ahis Notes, he has one with reference to this ”_objective case absolute_,” as follows: ”It is not governed by the conjunction, for on no other occasion does a conjunction govern any case; or by any word understood, for we can insert no word, or words, that will reconcile the phrase with any other rule of grammar: and if we employ a pronoun personal instead of the relative, as _he_, which will ad resolved elliptically, it ainst this gentleainst that of Murray, Russell, and others; that on no other occasion do we speak of putting ”the objective case absolute;”
and if, agreeably to the analogy of our own tongue, our distinguished authors would condescend to say _than who_,[436] surely nobody would think of calling this an instance of the no _new theorist_, that most pedantic of all scoffers, Oliver B Peirce
OBS 22--The suular and ical expression than _than whom_; but both are of questionable propriety, and the forrammars; while the latter, which is in some sort a Latinisuished writers And, since that which is irregular cannot be parsed by rule, if out of respect to authority we judge it allowable, it rammar; which are, all of them, intentional deviations from the ordinary use of words One late author treats the point pretty well, in this short hint: ”After the conjunction _than_, contrary to analogy, _who's Gra note: ”When _who_ immediately follows _than_, it is used _ireater king never reigned;'--_than whoht to be, _than who_; because _who_ is the nominative to _was_ understood--_Than whom_ is as bad a phrase as 'he is taller _than him_' It is true that some of our best writers have used _than whom_; but it is also true, that they have used _other_ phrases which we have rejected as ungrammatical; then why not reject this too?”--_Lennie's Grammar_, Edition of 1830, p 105