Part 146 (1/2)
OBS 8--The second exception above, wherever it is found applicable, cancels the first; because it introduces an antecedent term before the preposition _to_, as iven It is questionable too, whether both of them may not also be cancelled in an other way; that is, by transposition and the introduction of the pronoun _it_ for the noreat _affliction_, TO _be reduced_ to poverty”--”_It_ is _hard_ FOR _an”--”Nevertheless _it_ is more needful for you, THAT _I should abide_ in the flesh” We cannot so well say, ”It is more needful _for you_, FOR _me to abide_ in the flesh;” but we may say, ”It is, _on your account_, more needful FOR _me to abide_ in the flesh” If these, and other similar examples, are not to be accounted additional instances in which _to_ and _for_, and also the conjunction that, are without any proper antecedent terms, we must suppose these particles to show the relation bethat precedes and what follows them
OBS 9--The preposition (as its naoverns Yet there are so a relative or an interrogative pronoun, is often separated from its object, and connected with the other term of relation; as, ”_Whoeneral raceful, to place the preposition before the pronoun; as, ”_To whooverned by a preposition, must always precede it In so; as, ”To set off the banquet [_that_ or _which_] he gives notice _of_”--_Philological Museum_, i, 454 Sometimes the objective word is put first because it is ereat understand, _this_ they pique the_, p 66 Prepositions of more than one syllable, are sometimes put immediately after their objects, especially in poetry; as, ”Known all the _world over_”--_Walker's Particles_ p 291 ”The thing is known all _Lesbos over_”--_Ibid_
”Wild Carron's lonely _woods ahorne_
”Thy deep _ravines_ and _dells along_”--_Sir W Scott_
OBS 10--Two prepositions soainst_ Westminster abbey”--_Murray's Gram_, i, 118 ”And _from before_ the lustre of her face, White break the clouds away”--_Thore fiend Blows mildew _from between_ his shrivell'd lips”--_Cowper_
These, in h they are not usually written as compounds, appear naturally to coalesce in their syntax, as was observed in the tenth chapter of Etyy, and to express a sort of compound relation between the other terms hich they are connected When such is their character, they ought to be taken together in parsing; for, if we parse them separately, we must either call the first an adverb, or suppose some very aard ellipsis Some instances however occur, in which an object ht to be; as, ”He is at liberty to sell it _at_ [a price] _above_ a fair remuneration”-- _Wayland's Moral Science_, p 258 ”And I wish they had been at the botto] _upon_ my back”--_Sandford and Merton_, p 29 In such exa, the first preposition, _of_, appears to overn the plural noun which ends the sentence; and the intermediate ones, _from_ and _to_, to have both terms of their relation _understood_: ”Iambic verse consists _of from_ two _to_ six feet; that is, _of from_ four _to_ twelve syllables”--_Blair's Gram_, p 119 ”Trochaic verse consists _of fro is--”Ia in nu fro from one _foot_ to three _feet_”
OBS 11--One antecedent ter on it, with one object after each, or more than one after any, or only one after both or all; as, ”A declaration _for_ virtue and _against_ vice”--_Butler's anal_, p 157 ”A positive law _against_ all fraud, falsehood, _and_ violence, and _for_, or _in_ favour _of_, all justice _and_ truth” ”For _of_ his”--_Bible_ In fact, not only ard to all or any of the words, but it ard to all or any of them Hence several different prepositions, whether they have different antecedent terms or only one and the same, may refer either jointly or severally to one object or to more This follows, because not only may either antecedents or objects be connected by conjunctions, but prepositions also ad of their antecedents Examples: ”They are capable _of_, and placed _in_, different stations in the society of mankind”--_Butler's anal_, p 115
”Our perception _of_ vice _and_ ill desert arises _from_, and is the result _of_, a comparison _of_ actions _with_ the nature _and_ capacities _of_ the agent”--_Ib_, p 279 ”And the design _of_ this chapter is, _to_ inquire how far this is the case; how far, _over and above_ the iven us, _and_ our natural notion _of_ hiovernor _of_ those his creatures _to_ whoiven this nature; I say, how far, _besides_ this, the principles _and_ beginnings _of_ a overn and amidst_ all the confusion _and_ disorder _of_ it”--_Ib_, p 85
OBS 12--The preposition _into_, expresses a relation produced by e; and _in_, the sa produced it: hence, ”to walk _into_ the garden,” and, ”to walk _in_ the garden,” are very different in reeable to find a word split _into_ two by a pause”--_Kaht in sense, but because brevity is desirable in unemphatic particles, I suppose most persons would say, ”split _in_ two”
In the Bible we have the phrases, ”rent _in_ twain,”--”cut _in_ pieces,”--”brake _in_ pieces the rocks,”--”brake all their bones _in pieces_,”--”brake them _to_ pieces,”--”broken _to_ pieces,”--”pulled _in_ pieces” In all these, except the first, _to_ may perhaps be considered preferable to _in_; and _into_ would be objectionable only because it is longer and less simple ”Half of them dare not shake the snow from off their cassocks, lest they shake themselves _to_ pieces”--SHAK: _Kames_, ii, 246
OBS 13--_Between_, or _betwixt_, is used in reference to two things or parties; _areater nu by which an other may be surrounded: as, ”Thou pendulum _betwixt_ a smile and tear”--_Byron_ ”The host _between the_ st_ decay, and stand a ruin _a examples, the iarded; ”The Greeks wrote in capitals, and left no spaces between their words”--_Wilson's Essay_, p 6
This construction may perhaps be allowed, because the spaces by which words are now divided, occur severally _between_ one word and an other; but the author uish_ their words” ”There was a hunting reed upon _betwixt_ a lion, an ass, and a fox”--_L'Estrange_ Here _by_ or _a_ would, I think, be better than _betwixt_, because the partners were more than two ”_Between_ two _or ly, as to the preference in point of merit”--_Campbell's Rhet_, p 162; _Ja_ two or more authors,”
because _between_ is not consistent with the word _reatest confusion and disorder”--_Spect_, No 476
Say, ”Rising _pro_ is not consistent with the distributive ter together between the same terms of relation, and soiven several plain exay, a very great number, all from sources sufficiently respectable
But, in rainally written by Priestley, which it is proper here to cite, as an other specimen of the Doctor's hastiness, and of the blind confidence of certain compilers and copyists: ”Two different prepositions _must be improper_ in the same construction, and in the saainst _twenty English_ Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 2, p 292”--_Priestley's Gram_, p 156 Lindley Murray and others have the same remark, with the exaainst_ twenty English”--_Murray's Gram_, 8vo, p 200; _Sersoll's_, 228 W
Allen has it thus: ”Two different prepositions in the _same construction_ are iainst thirty_ English”--_Eleives the odds to the latter party Hiley, with no expense of thought, first takes from Murray, as he from Priestley, the useless remark, ”Different relations, and different senses, must be expressed by different prepositions;” and then adds, ”_One relation_ must not, _therefore_, be expressed by two different prepositions in the saainst thirty_ English,' should be, 'The colish'”--_Hiley's E Gram_, p 97 It is manifest that the error of this example is not in the use of _two prepositions_, nor is there any truth or fitness in the note or notes made on it by all these critics; for had they said, ”The colish,”
there would still be two prepositions, but where would be the impropriety, or where the sameness of construction, which they speak of? _Between_ is incoainst_, only because it requires two parties or things for its own regimen; as, ”The colishmen_” This is what Smollett should have written, to make sense with the word ”_between_”
OBS 15--With like irammarians and others have adopted from Lowth an observation in which the learned doctor has censured quite too strongly the joint reference of different prepositions to the same objective noun: to wit, ”Some writers separate the preposition from its noun, in order to connect different prepositions to the same noun; as, 'To suppose the zodiac and planets to be efficient _of_, and antecedent _to_, themselves' Bentley, Serm 6 This [construction], whether in the faant_; and _should never be admitted_, but in forms of law, and the like; where fullness and exactness of expression must take _place_ of every other consideration”--_Lowth's Gram_, p 96; _Murray's_, i, 200; _Ser's_, 67; _Picket's_, 207
Churchill even goes further, both strengthening the censure, and disallowing the exception: thus, ”This, whether in the soleant, and should _never be ad the repetition of a word, _which ht be accomplished without it_ by any person who has the least coe”--_New Grae, not one of these gentle sentence from Bentley may be _amended_; while many of their number not only venture to use different prepositions before the same noun, but even to add a phrase which puts that noun in the nominative case: as, ”Thus, the time of the infinitive overning verb, according as the _thing_ signified by the infinitive is supposed to be _before, after_, or _present with_, the _thing_ denoted by the governing verb”--_Murray's Graersoll's_, 260; _R C
Smith's_, 159
OBS 16--The structure of this example not only contradicts palpably, and twice over, the doctrine cited above, but one may say of the former part of it, as Lowth, Murray, and others do, (in no very accurate English,) of the text 1 Cor, ii, 9: ”There seems to be an impropriety in this sentence, in which the sa at the same time the _offices both of the nominative and objective cases_”--_Murray's Graersoll's_, 277; _Fisk's_, 149; _Smith's_, 185 Two other examples, exactly like that which is so pointedly censured above, are placed by Murray under his thirteenth rule for the comma; and these likewise, with all faithfulness, are copied by Ingersoll, Ser, Kirkham, Comly, Russell, and I know not how many more In short, not only does this rule of their punctuation include the construction in question; but the following exception to it, which is reh faultiness, is applicable to _no other_: ”Sorees_, is _single_, it is better to _omit_ the comma before it: as, 'Many states were in alliance _with_, and under the protection _of_ Roersoll's_, 284; _Kirkhaer's_, 79; _Alden's_, 149; _Abel Flint's_, 103; _Russell's_, 115 But the blunders and contradictions on this point, end not here Dr Blair happenedof particles, or separating a preposition frooverns, is _always to be avoided_ As if I should say, 'Though virtue borrows no assistance froes of fortune'”--_Lect XII_, p 112 This too, though the author hiht worthy to be copied, or stolen, with all its faults! See _Jamieson's Rhetoric_, p 93; and _Murray's Octavo Gram_, p 319
OBS 17--Dr Lowth says, ”The noun _aversion_, (that is, a turning away,) as likewise the adjective _averse_, seems to require the preposition _from_ after it; and not so properly to admit of _to_, or _for_, which are often used with it”--_Gram_, p 98 But this doctrine has not been adopted by the later grammarians: ”The words _averse_ and _aversion_ (says Dr
Campbell) are more properly construed with _to_ than with _from_ The examples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison outnumbered by those in favour of the forersoll's_, 229 This however must be understood only of mental aversion The expression of Milton, ”On the coast _averse froed to _to_ So the noun _exception_, and the verb to _except_, are soard to the Latin particle _ex_, hich the word commences; but the noun at least is much more frequently, and perhaps more properly, followed by _to_ Exaoing theory”--_Kames, El of Crit_, ii, 268 ”_From_ which there are but two _exceptions_, both of them rare”--_Ib_, ii 89 ”_To_ the rule that fixes the pause after the fifth portion, there is one _exception_, and no more”--_Ib_, ii, 84 ”No _exception_ can be taken _to_ the justness of the figure”--_Ib_, ii, 37 ”Originally there was no _exception_ from the rule”--_Lowth's Gram_, p 58 ”_From_ this rule there is mostly an _exception_”--_Murray's Gram_, i, 269 ”But _to_ this rule there are arded as exceptions _from_ the rule,”--_Ca the exa _on_ [of] it,”
Churchill re the _London vulgar_ in perpetually substituting _on_ for _of_, and _of_ for _on_”--_New Gra the expressions which Caaris: ”'Tis_to_ the following points”--_Guardian_, No 57 ”The preposition ought to have been _on_
Precisely of the same stamp is the _on't_ for _of it_, so much used by one class of writers”--_Philosophy of Rhet_, p 217 So far as I have observed, the use of _of_ for _on_ has never been frequent; and that of _on_ for _of_, or _on't_ for _of it_, though it may never have been a polite custoe
”And soMaster, whatever comes _on't_, must have a Wife look'd out for him”--_Locke, on Ed_, p 378 In Saxon, _on_ was put for more than half a dozen of our present prepositions The difference between _of_ and _on_ or _upon_, appears in general to be obvious enough; and yet there are some phrases in which it is not easy to deterht to be preferred: as, ”Many things they cannot _lay hold on_ at once”--HOOKER: _Joh Dict_ ”Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and _took hold of_ it”--2 SAM: _ib_ ”Rather thou shouldst _lay hold upon_ hie to _lay hold on_ the occasion”--MILTON: _ib_ ”The hand is fitted to _lay hold of_ objects”--RAY: _ib_ ”My soul _took hold on_ thee”--ADDISON: _ib_ ”To _lay hold of_ this safe, this only ive_ fortune no more _hold_ of him”--DRYDEN: _ib_ ”And his laws _take_ the surest _hold of_ us”--TILLOTSON: _ib_ ”It will then be impossible you can _have_ any _hold upon_ hiladly _laid hold on_ all the opportunities”--_Murray's Key_, ii, p 198
”Then did the officer _lay hold of_ him and execute him”--_Ib_, ii, 219
”When one can _lay hold upon_ some noted fact”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 311
”But ould _lay_ fire which every one is glad to _lay hold of_”--_Ib_, p 75 ”To have _laid_ fast _hold of_ it in his mind”--_Ib_, p 94 ”I would advise them to lay aside their common-places, and to _think_ closely _of_ their subject”--_Ib_, p 317 ”Did they not _take hold of_ your fathers?”--_Zech_, i, 6 ”Ten men shall _take hold of_ the skirt of one that is a Jew”--_Ib_, viii, 23 ”It is wrong to say, either 'to _lay_ hold _of_ a thing,' or 'to _take_ hold _on_ it'”--_Blair's Gra couplet, _on_ seems to have been preferred only for a rhy on_!