Part 297 (1/2)
The substantive is then in the _objective_ case, and may be called the _objective after the infinitive_, or _participle_; [as,] It is an honor to be the _author_ of such a work His being a great _ an obedient _child_, you will secure the approbation of your parents”--_Farnum's Practical Gram_, 1st Ed, p 25 The first of these exainal Note;) the second is bad English,--or, at' any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for sa by the rule: ”_child_” is in the nominative case See Obs 7th above
[362] When the preceding case is not ”_the verb's nominative_” this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the hich is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, ”_constructively follows_,” in lieu of the phrase, ”_comes after_”
[363] The author of this exah _John's_ is in the possessive, and both words denote the saeneral rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules Example: ”_Maria's_ duty, as a _teacher_, is, to instruct her pupils” Here, he says, ”_Teacher_ is in the _possessive_ case, fro the same object”--_Peirce's Graible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy He means, however, that, ”_Teacher_ is in the possessive case, fro the same object” No word can be possessive ”fro immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, ”_Sterne's Maria_”
[364] Dr Webster, as ever ready to justify ale for which he could find half a dozen respectable authorities, absurdly supposes, that _who_ htly preferred to _whom_, as the object of a preposition His reative, there is an _apparent deviation_ fro used _without distinction of case_; as, '_Who_ do you speak _to?_' '_Who_ is she married _to?_' '_Who_ is this reserved _for?_' '_Who_ was it made _by?_'
This _idios of our best authors”--_Webster's Philosophical Gram_, p 194; his _Improved Gram_, p 136 ”In this phrase, '_Who_ do you speak _to?_' there is a _deviation_ fro _who_, in certain familiar phrases, seems to be _established_ by the best authors”--_Webster's Rudiments of E Gram_, p 72 Almost any other solecism may be quite as well justified as this The present work shows, in fact, a great ruities which it ventures to rebuke
[365] Gra such nouns
Wells says, ”This is _the case independent by ellipsis_”--_School Gram_, p 123 But the idea of _such_ a case is a flat absurdity Ellipsis occurs only where so, not uttered, is i, the noun is, of course, its _object_; and therefore _not independent_ Webster, with too much contempt for the opinion of ”Lowth, followed by the _whole tribe of writers_ on this subject,” declares it ”a palpable error,” to suppose ”prepositions to be understood before these expressions;” and, by t rules, his 22d and 28th, teaches, that, ”Names of measure or dimension, followed by an adjective,” and ”Names of certain portions of ti continuance of ti word_”--_Philos Gram_, pp 165 and 172; _Imp Gram_, 116 and 122; _Rudiments_, 65 and 67 But this is no account at all of the _construction_, or of the _case_ of the noun As the nominative, or the case which we overn word_,” implies that the case is _objective_; and how can this case be known, except by the discovery of so word,” of which it is the _object?_ We find, however, : ”Nouns of tiree, are put in the objective case without a preposition”--_Nutting's Gram_, p 100 ”Nouns which denote time, quantity, measure, distance, value, or direction are often put in the objective case without a preposition”--_Weld's Gra duration, extension, quantity, quality, and valuation, are in the objective case without a governing word”--_Frazee's Gram_, p 154 _Bullions_, too, has a siht, one should observe how often the nouns in question are found _with_ a governing word Weld, of late, contradicts hi the ellipsis_; and then, inconsistently with his admission, most absurdly _denies the frequent use_ of the preposition with nouns of _time, quantity_, &c ”Before words of this description, the _ellipsis of a preposition is obvious_ But it is _seldom proper to use_ the preposition before such words”--_Weld's ”Abridged Edition,”_ p 118
[366] Professor Fowler absurdly says, ”_Nigh, near, next, like_, when followed by the objective case, _arded either_ as Prepositions or as Adjectives, _to_ being understood”--_Fowler's E Gra understood,” it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be co better than an idle whim; and, since the classification of words as parts of speech, is always positive and exclusive, to refer any particular word indecisively to ”_either_” of two classes, is certainly no better _teaching_, than to say, ”I do not knohich sort it is; call it what you please!” With decision proy or consistency, Lathaoverns a case_, and it is the only adjective that does so”--_Elenore these facts: that _near_, _nigh_, or _opposite_,a case; and that the use of _to_ or _unto_ after _like_ has been coh to prove the ellipsis The Bible has many examples; as, ”Who is _like to_ thee in Israel?”--_1 Samuel_, xxvi, 15 ”Hew thee two tables of stone _like unto_ the first”--_Exodus_, xxxiv, 1; and _Deut_, x, 1
But their great inconsistency here is, that they call the case after like ”_a dative_”--a case unknown to their etyrammar, a _solitary_ exception or instance can scarcely be a _true one_
[367] The following examples may illustrate these points: ”These verbs, and all others _like to_ the_, Vol ii, p 128 ”The old Gerothic than they are to the dialect of the Edda”--_Ib_, i, 330 ”Proxihest_ the end”--_Ib_, ii, 150 ”Let us now coe”--_Dr Blair's Rhet_, p 85 ”This looks _very like_ a paradox”--BEATTIE: _Murray's Gra”--_Ib_, p 116 Murray, who puts _near_ into his list of prepositions, gives this example to sho ”_prepositions become adverbs!_” ”There was none ever before _like unto_ it”--_Stone, on Masonry_, p 5
”And earthly power doth then show _likest_ God's, When mercy seasons justice”--_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p 45
[368] Wright's notion of this construction is positively absurd and self-contradictory In the sentence, ”My cane is worth a shi+lling,” he takes the word _worth_ to be a noun ”in _apposition_ to the word _shi+lling_” And to prove it so, he puts the sentence successively into these four for;”--”The _worth_ or _value_ of 's worth_;”--”My cane is _the worth of_ a shi+lling”--_Philosophical Gram_, p 150 In all these transmutations, _worth_ is unquestionably a noun; but, in none of the_; and he is quitethat they ”indispensably prove the word in question to be a _noun_” There are other authors, ith equal confidence, and equal absurdity, call _worth_ a _verb_ For exanifies the price, is put in the objective case, without a preposition; as, 's' _Is worth_ is a _neuter verb_, and answers to the _latin_ [sic--KTH] verb _valet_”--_Barrett's Gram_, p 138 I do not deny that the phrase ”_is worth_” is a just version of the verb _valet_; but this equivalence in import, is no proof at all that _worth_ is a verb _Prodest_ is a Latin verb, which signifies ”_is profitable to_;” but ill thence infer, that _profitable to_ is a verb?
[369] In J R Chandler's English Grammar, as published in 1821, the word _worth_ appears in the list of prepositions: but the revised list, in his edition of 1847, does not contain it In both books, however, it is expressly parsed as a preposition; and, in expounding the sentence, ”The book is worth a dollar,” the author makes this remark: ”_Worth_ has been called an adjective by some, and a noun by others: _worth_, however, in this sentence expresses a relation by value, and is so far a preposition; and no ellipsis, which iving the sentence a different ”--_Chandler's Gram_, Old Ed, p 155; New Ed, p 181
[370] Cowper here purposely lish; but this is no reason why a school-boy ht to correct it Dr Priestley supposed that the word _we_, in the example, ”_To poor we_, thine enmity,”
&c, was also used by Shakespeare, ”in a droll humorous way”--_Gram_, p
103 He surely did not know the connexion of the text It is in ”Volumnia's _pathetic_ speech” to her victorious son See _Coriolanus_, Act V, Sc 3
[371] Dr Enfieldit into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing _we_ to _us_: as if theus fools of nature”
But it is plain, that all ”fool's of nature!” , and not persons tehost; nor does theof the last two lines comport with any objective construction of this pronoun See _Enfield's Speaker_, p 864
[372] In Clark's Practical Grammar, of 1848, is found this NOTE: ”The Noun should correspond in number with the Adjectives EXAMPLES--A two feet ruler A ten feet pole”--P 165 These exa: the doctrine is misapplied in both With this author, _a_, as well as _two_ or _ten_, is an _adjective_ of number; and, since these differ in number, what sort of concord or construction do the four words in each of these phrases make?
When a numeral and a noun are united to form a _compound adjective_, we coular form: as, ”A _twopenny_ toy,”--”a _twofold_ error,”--”_three-coat_ plastering,”
say, ”a _twofoot_ rule,”--”a _tenfoot_ pole;” which phrases are right; while Clark's are not only unusual, but unanalogical, ungrammatical
[373] Certain adjectives that differ in number, are sometimes connected disjunctively by _or_ or _than_, while the noun literally agrees with that which immediately precedes it, and with the other ure which is called _zeugether by _one_ or _more_ copulative conjunctions”-- _Lowth's Gram_, p 75; _L Murray's_, 2d Ed, p 106 ”He speaks not to _one_ or a _few_ judges, but to a large assembly”--_Blair's Rhet_, p
280 ”_More_ than _one_ object at a time”--_Murray's Gram_, 8vo, p 301
See Obs 10th on Rule 17th
[374] Double comparatives and double superlatives, such as, ”The _more serener_ spirit,”--”The _most straitest_ sect,”--are noticed by Latham and Child, in their syntax, as expressions which ”we occasionally find, even in good writers,” and are truly stated to be ”_pleonastic_;” but, forbearing to censure them as errors, these critics seem rather to justify them as pleonasms allowable Their indecisive remarks are at fault, not only because they are indecisive, but because they are both liable and likely to mislead the learner--See their _Elementary Graely i to nouns expressed or understood after thes)”--_The True English Grara of _the_, and of course means _this, that, these, those_, as the case ralish; and so is ”_they graar do not take care to _vary this adjective_, ”as _the case_a noun to every pronoun, is a fit counterpart to that of soine an ellipsis of a pronoun after almost every noun Thus: ”The personal _Relatives_, for the most part, _are suppressed_ when the Noun is expressed: as, Man (he) is the Lord of this loorld Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation The Palace (it) stands on a Hill Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures”--_British Grareat deal to some men, to have knohat an Ellipsis is_; and the ht to be forever honoured in the schools
[376] ”An illegitirammatical use of these words, _either_ and _neither_, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, '_Twenty_ ruffians broke into the house, but _neither_ of thenized' 'Here are _fifty_ pens, you will find that _either_ of thee_, p 199 ”_Either_ and _neither_, applied to any number more than _one_ of _two_ objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction”--_Ib_, p 200 Say, ”_Either_ OR _neither_,” &c--G
B
[377] Dr Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word _whole_ is an ”_attribute of unity_,” and therefore improperly added to a plural noun But, in fact, this adjective is not _necessarily_ singular, nor is _all_ necessarily plural Yet there is a difference between the words: _whole_ is equivalent to _all_ only when the noun is singular; for then only do _entireness_ and _totality_ coincide A _,” when he s, whole things_ In the following example, _all_ is put for _whole_, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: ”Which doth encos”--_The Dial_, Vol i, p 59