Part 296 (1/2)

[336] Horne Tooke says, ”The _use_ of A after the word MANY is a corruption for _of_; and has _no connection_ whatever with the _article_ A, i e

_one_”--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol ii, p 324 With this conjecture of the learned etyist, I do not concur: it is hardly worth while to state here, whatcan be more certain than that [in Greek syntax] all words used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition [with an article] is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed”--J W DONALDSON: _Journal of Philology_, No 2, p 223

[338] _Churchill_ rashly condemns this construction, and still ular without repeating the article See his _New Graets his own doctrine; as, ”In fact, _the second and fourth lines_ here stamp the character of the measure”--_Ib_, p 391 O B Peirce says, ”'Jorahters_,' hters_ and _third daughters_; and, 'the _first_ and _second verses_' if it , must represent the _first verses_ and the _second verses_”-- _Peirce's English Gra to my notion, this interpretation is as false and hypercritical, as is the rule by which the author professes to shohat is right Hesoy, such as, ”the _indefinite-past and present_ of the _declarative mode_”--_Ib_, p 100 The critic rites such stuff as this, lish It is plain, that the two exaant But, in an alternative of single things, the article _must be repeated_, and a plural noun is improper; as, ”But they do not receive _the_ Nicene _or the_ Athanasian _creeds_”--_Adaious World_, Vol ii, p 105 Say, ”_creed_” So in an enumeration; as, ”There are three participles: _the_ present, _the_ perfect, and _the_ coersoll's Grae this last word, ”_participles_” So in itself a solecisht Exaical and Syntactical part”--_Fowler's E Gram_, N Y, 1850, p 75 This implies, what appears not to be true, that the author le part of his work Had he put an _s_ to the noun ”part,” he ht have been understood in either of two other ways, but not in this To , therefore, he should have said--”in the Etyical _Part_ and _the_ Syntactical”

[339] Oliver B Peirce, in his new theory of graersoll's error, but adds others to it He supposes no ellipsis, and declares it grossly i to hi: ”My son, _despise not thou_ the chastening of the Lord”--_Heb_, xii, 5 See _Peirce's Graentleman's book I shall say the less, because its faults are so lish Language_,” and clailish Grae!”--_Ib_, p 10 In punctuation, it is a very _chaos_, as oneRule: ”A _word_ of the _second person_, and in the _subjective_ case, _must have_ a _semicolon_ after it; as, John; hear me”--_Id_, p 282 Behold his practice! ”John, beware”--P 84 ”Children, study”--P 80 ”Henry; study”--P 249 ”Pupil: parse”--P 211; and ? Be ye or you, or do ye or you be writing?”--P 110

According to his Rule, this tense requires six semicolons; but the author points it with two coation!

[340] In Butler's Practical Graht as a _novelty_ His publishers, in their circular letter, speak of it as one of ”the _peculiar advantages_ of this gra works,” and as an irammarians_!” Wells cites Butler in support of his false principle: ”A verb in the infinitive is _often_ preceded by a noun or pronoun in the objective, which has _no direct dependence_ on any other word

Exa _fortress_ of wood and plaster _to be erected_'--_Irving_ 'Its favors here should _” See _Wells's School Gram_, p 147

[341] ”Soimens_, and then _the preposition is necessary_ to one of thees'”--_Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p 178 Here the verb _address_ governs the pronoun _myself_, and is also the antecedent to the preposition _to_; and the construction would be sioverned the infinitive or a participle: as, ”I prepared ” But, in any of these cases, it is not very accurate to say, ”_the verb has two regii the prepositions, and supposing ellipses, found _two regimens for every verb_

W Allen, on the contrary, (fro the ”accusative” to the infinitive, makes a multitude of our active-transitive verbs ”_neuter_” See _Allen's Gram_, p 166 But Nixon absurdly calls the verb ”active-transitive,” _because it governs the infinitive_; i e as he supposes--and, except when _to_ is not used, _erroneously_ supposes

[342] A certain _new theorist_, who very innocently fogs himself and his credulous readers with a deal of i my doctrine that _to_ before the infinitive is a _preposition_, appeals to me thus: ”Let me ask you, G B--is not the infinitive in Latin _the sao Cupio _docere_ I saw Abel _conized by the Greek graes”--_O B Peirce's Gra but from what appears in his book--a work of i performance This short sample of his Latin, (_with six puerile errors in seven words_,) is proof positive that he knows nothing of that language, whatever ues of which he tells To his question I answer eoverns an other in the infinitive; as, _Cupio discere_, I desire _to_ learn”--_Adaovernment never admits the intervention of a preposition ”I saw Abel come,” has no preposition; but the Latin of it is, ”_Vidi Abele to St Jeroht rather to say, ”_Vidi Abel venienteo videba!

[343] Priestley cites these examples as _authorities_, not as _false syntax_ The errors which I thus quote at secondhand froeneral such as the first quoters have allowed, and made themselves responsible for; but this is not the case in every instance Such credit has soiven, where the expression was disapproved--G BROWN

[344] Lindley Murray thought it not impracticable to put two or n to each; nor did he iine there would often be any positive i His words, on this point, are these: ”On the other hand, the application of the _genitive_ sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be _generally_ harsh and displeasing, and _perhaps in soe's; Charles's the Second's; The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's”--_Octavo Grained _any of these_ to be ”_incorrect_” or not, does not appear! Under the next rule, I shall give a short note which will show the these uncouth fictions, which show nothing but his own deficiency in grammar, has done the world the favour not to pronounce theraph as follows: ”The rules which _we_ have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the _inconveniences_ of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be _simple, perspicuous_, and _consistent_ with the idioe'--_Ib_ This undeserved praise of his own rules, he ht as well have left to some other hand They have had the fortune, however, to please sundry critics, and to become the prey of many thieves; but are certainly very deficient in the three qualities here naether with their illustrations, they form little else than a tissue of errors, partly his own, and partly copied from Lowth and Priestley

Dr Latha on this point is still more marvellous, not only inculcate the idea that possessives in form may be in apposition, but sees are essential to the relation Forgetting all such English as we have in the phrases, ”_John the Baptist's head_,”--”_For Jacob my servant's sake_,”--”_Julius Caesar's Commentaries_,”--they invent shae from any actual use,--such as, ”_John's the farmer's wife_,”--”_Oliver's the spy's evidence_,”--and then end their section with the general truth, ”For words to be in apposition with each other, they must be in the same case”--_Elementary Grammar, Revised Edition_, p 152 What sort of scholarshi+p is that in which _fictitious examples_ mislead even their inventors?

[345] In Professor Fowler's recent and copious work, ”The English Language in its Elements and Forms,” our present _Reciprocals_ are called, not _pronominal Adjectives_, but ”_pronouns_,” and are spoken of, in the first instance, thus: ”--248 A RECIPROCAL pronOUN is _one_ that ients EACH OTHER, and ONE ANOTHER, are our reciprocal forms, _which are treated exactly as if they were coenitives, _each other's, one another's_ _Each other_ is properly used of _two_, and _one another_ of _ranted what is at least disputable, that ”_each other_,” or ”_one another_,” is not a phrase, but is merely ”_one pronoun_” But, to none of his three important positions here taken, does the author himself at all adhere In --451, at Note 3, he teaches thus: ”'They love each other' Here _each_ is in the nominative case in apposition with _they_, and _other_ is in the objective case 'They helped one another' Here _one_ is in apposition with _they_, and _another_ is in the objective case” Now, by this , the reciprocal terms ”are treated,” not as ”co of distinct or separable words: and, as being separate or separable words, whether they be Adjectives or pronouns, they conform not to his definition above Out of the sundry instances in which, according to his own showing, he has misapplied one or the other of these phrases, I cite the following: (1) ”The _two_ ideas of Science and Art differ fro differs from the will”--_Fowler's Gram_, 1850, --180

Say,--”from _each_ other;” or,--”_one_ froically related to _each_ other”--_Ib_, --216 Say,--”to _one an_ other;” because there are ”_more_” than ”_two_” (3) ”Till within solish, addressed _each_ other in faular”--_Ib_, --221 Say,--”addressed _one an_ other” (4) ”Two sentences are, on the other hand, connected in the way of co-ordination [,]

when they are not thus dependent one upon _an_other”--_Ib_, --332

Say,--”upon _each_ other;” or,--”one upon _the_ other;” because there are but two (5) ”These two rivers are at a great distance from one _an_other”--_Ib_, --617 Say,--”from _each_ other;” or,--”_one from the_ other” (6) ”The trees [in the _Forest of Bo, and twined into _each other_”--_Ib_, --617 Say,--”into _one an_ other”

[346] For this quotation, Dr Ca reference: ”Introduction, &c, Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase” But in lish Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I _do not_ find the passage Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part--G BROWN

[347] By sorammarians it is presuovern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood _literally_, assumes it as an ”_established principle_,” that they _all_ do so! ”_Participles govern_ nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived fro to be in the objective case, _without the intervention of the preposition of_; as 'Much depends on _Willia the rule_, and error will be the consequence of _his neglecting it_;' or, 'Much _will_ depend on the _rule's being observed by Willialected_'”--_Hiley's Gram_, p 94 These sentences, without doubt, are _nearly_ equivalent to each other inTo make theed in tense, and ”_its being neglected_” lected by him_” But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will y of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is alish language?”--_Ib_, p

1

[348] What, in Weld's ”Abridged Edition,” is iinal work,” still entleeneral rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or i mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the _participial_--”_object possessed_;” but, in ht not be aoverned by a participial clause; as,frequently _Pupil's_ is governed by the _clause_, '_con ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the _participial clause_ following it”--_Weld's Graoverned by a participial _noun_; as, Much will depend on the _pupil's_ cooverned by the participial _noun cooverned by the participial _noun_ following it”--_Weld's Gra the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as gra, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partlyinstructions, he subjoins the following coinal note: ”_The participle used as a noun_, still _retains its verbal properties_, and overn the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived”--_Ibid_ When one part of speech is said to be _used as an other_, the learner iven word belongs If ”_the participle used as a noun_, still retains its verbal properties,” it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a _nounal participle_, whether the thing be allowable or not Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent Wells says, ”_Participles_ are often used _in the sense of nouns_; as, 'There was again the _slittering_ of harness'--IRVING”--_School Gram_, p

154 This is not well stated; because these are participial _nouns_, and not ”_participles_” What Wells calls ”participial nouns,” differ frorels, _all_ participles rather than nouns In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be entleman His sole rule supposes the pupil always to knohen and why the possessive is _proper_, and only instructs hin!_ It is this: ”When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a _participle used as a noun_, is _properly_ in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted”--_School Gram_, p 121 All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner Those which are called ”_Correct_,” are, I think erroneous; and those which are called ”_False Syntax_,” the adding of the possessive sign will not amend

[349] It is re his work, did not see the _inconsistency_ of his instructions in relation to phrases of this kind First he copies Lowth's doctrine, literally and anony to which _another is said to belong_, is expressed by a circun of the possessive case _is co of Great Britain's_ dominions'”--_Murray's Gram_, 8vo, p 45 Afterwards he condeenitive case is frequently PLACED IMPROPERLY: as, 'This fact appears froham's_ experiments' _It_ should be, 'frohaain he makes it necessary: ”A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, _necessarily requires_ the genitive sign _at or near_ the end _of the phrase_: as, 'Whose prerogative is it? It is the _king of Great Britain's_;' 'That is the _duke of Bridgewater's_ canal;' ” &c--_Ib_, p 276 Is there not contradiction in these instructions?

[350] A late gra in _es_ and _ss_, the other _s_ is not added; as, _Charles'_ hat, _Goodness'_ sake”--_Wilcox's Gra in _es_ or _ss_, the other _s_ is not added” But his doctrine is worse than his syntax; and, what is reets it in the course of a few minutes, thus: ”Decline _Charles_ Nom _Charles_, Poss _Charles's_, Obj _Charles_”--_Ib_, p 12 See the like doctrine in Mulligan's recent work on the ”_Structure of Language_,” p 182

[351] VAUGELAS was a noted French critic, who died in 1650 In Murray's Grae 359th, of the edition above cited, it is printed ”_Vangelas_”--G BROWN

[352] Nixon parses _boy_, as being ”in the possessive case, governed by distress understood;” and _girl's_, as being ”coupled by _nor_ to _boy_,”

according to the Rule, ”Conjunctions connect the sa; the other, parsed wrong: and so of _all_ his examples above--G BROWN