Part 297 (2/2)
[378] This is not a mere repetition of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted
Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way--G BROWN
[379] Some authors erroneously say, ”A _personal_ pronoun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, _I_ will do it'”--_Goodenow's Gram_ ”When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the _third_ person, but the pronoun you is of the _second_; yet _you_ stands for _children_,”--_Ingersoll's Gram_, p 54 Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circumstance It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's pronouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters The pronoun _I_ does not here stand for the noun _John_ which is of the third person; it is John's oord, representing hi is, _”I myself, John, of the first person, will do it”_ Nor does _you_ stand for _children_ as spoken _of_ by Ingersoll; but for _children_ of the _second person_, uttered or ier: as, ”_Children_, you must come in”
[380] The propriety of this construction is questionable See Obs 2d on Rule 14th
[381] Areat fault, are, Alden, W
Allen, D C Allen, C Adams, the author of the British Grammar, Buchanan, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Dilworth, Felton, Fisher, Fowler, Frazee, Goldsbury, Hallock, Hull, M'Culloch, Morley, Pinneo, J Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, R
C Smith, Spencer, Weld, Wells, Webster, and White ”_You is plural_, whether it refer to only one individual, or to more”--_Dr Crombie, on Etym and Synt_, p 240 ”The word _you_, even when applied to one person, is plural, and should never he connected with a singular verb”--_Alexander's Gram_, p 53; _Eh used as the Nale Person”--_W Ward's Graular in both Tiuish it froh we speak but to one particular Person, use _the Plural you_, and never thou, but e address ourselves to Alhty God, or e speak in an emphatical Manner, or make a distinct and particular Application to a Person”--_British Gram_, p 126; _Buchanan's_, 37 ”But _you_, tho' applied to a single Person, requires a _Plural Verb_, the same as ye; as, _you love_, not _you lovest_ or _loves_; you _were_, not _you was_ or _wast_”--_Buchanan's Gram_, p 37
[382] ”Mr Murray's 6th Rule is unnecessary”--_Lennie's English Gram_, p
81; _Bullions's_, p 90 The two rules of which I speak, constitute Murray's Rule VI; Alger's and Bacon's Rule VI; Merchant's Rule IX; Ingersoll's Rule XII; Kirkham's Rules XV and XVI; Jaudon's XXI and XXII; Crombie's X and XI; Nixon's Obs 86th and 87th: and are found in Lowth's Gram, p 100; Churchill's, 136; Adam's, 203; W Allen's, 156; Blair's, 75; and many other books
[383] This rule, in all its parts, is to be applied chiefly, if not solely, to such relative clauses as are taken in the _restrictive_ sense; for, in the _resumptive_ sense of the relative, _who_ or _which_ may be more proper than _that_: as, ”Abraham solemnly adjures his _most faithful_ servant, _whom_ he despatches to Charran on this e his mission with all fidelity”--_Mily, Chap 5th, Obs 23d, 24th, &c, on the Classes of pronouns
[384] Murray iely mistook the pronoun _he_ for the object of the preposition _with_; and accordingly condeovern the objective case” So of the following: ”It is not I he is engaged with”--_Murray's Exercises_, R 17 Better: ”It is not I _that_ he is engaged with” Here is no violation of the foregoing rule, or of any other; and both sentences, with even Murray's forood as his proposed substitutes: ”It was not _with hiry”--_Murray's Key_, p 51 ”It is not _with ed”--_Ib_ In these fancied corrections, the phrases _with him_ and _with me_ have a very aard and questionable position: it seery_ and _engaged_
[385] In their speculations on the _personal pronouns_, grammarians sometimes contrive, by a sort of abstraction, to reduce all the persons to the _third_; that is, the author or speaker puts _I_, not for himself in particular, but for any one who utters the word, and _thou_, not for his particular hearer or reader, but for any one who is addressed; and, conceiving of these as persons merely spoken of by himself, he puts the verb in the third person, and not in the first or second: as, ”_I is_ the speaker, _thou_ [_is_] the hearer, and _he, she_, or _it_, is the person or thing spoken of All denote _qualities of existence_, but such qualities asof _consciousness, thou_ [_is_ the being] of _perception_, and _he_ of _memory_”--_Booth's Introd_, p 44 This is such syntax as I should not choose to imitate; nor is it very proper to say, that the three persons in gra the phraseology to be correct, it is no _real_ exception to the foregoing rule of concord; for _I_ and _thou_ are here made to be pronouns of the _third_ person So in the following exalish: ”I, or the person who speaks, _is_ the first person; you, _is_ the second; he, she, or it, is the third person singular”--_Bartlett's Manual_, Part ii, p 70 Again, in the following; which is perhaps a little better: ”The person '_I_' _is spoken of_ as acted upon”--_Bullions, Prin of E Gram_, 2d Edition, p 29 But there is a , with this learned ”Professor of Languages,”
that the pronouns of the different persons _are_ those persons: as, ”_I is the first person_, and denotes the speaker _Thou is the second_, and denotes the person spoken to”--_Ib_, p 22
[386] (1) Concerning the verb _need_, Dr Webster has the following note: ”In the use of this verb there is another irregularity, which is peculiar, the verb being _without a nominative_, expressed or implied 'Whereof here _needs_ no account'--_Milt, P L_, 4 235 There is no evidence of the fact, and there _needs_ none This is an established use of _need_”--_Philos Gram_, p 178; _Improved Gram_, 127; _Greenleaf's Gram Simp_, p 38; _Fowler's E Gram_, p 537 ”Established use?” To be sure, it is ”an established use;” but the learned Doctor's comment is a most unconscionable blunder,--a pedantic violation of a sure principle of Universal Granoraiarisms, for ”Graet_, signifying _is necessary_, is here not active, but neuter; and has the nominative set _after it_, as any verb must, when the adverb _there_ or _here_ is before it The verbs _lack_ and _want_ may have the same construction, and can have no other, when the word _there_, and not a nominative, precedes thehteous”--_Gen_, xviii, 28 There is therefore neither ”_irregularity_,” nor any thing ”_peculiar_,” in thus placing the verb and its nora facility, have allowed the the schools, in regard to this very simple matter Thus Wells: ”The _transitive_ verbs _need_ and _want_, are soeneral sense, _without a nominative_, expressed or implied Examples:--'There _needed_ a new dispensation'--_Caleb Cushi+ng_ 'There _needs_ no better picture'--_Irving_ 'There _wanted_ not patrons to stand up'--_Sparks_
'Nor did there _want_ Cornice, or frieze'--_Milton_”--_Wells's School Gram_, 1st Ed, p 141: 113th Ed, p 154 In my edition of Milton, the text is, ”Nor did _they want_ Cornice or frieze”--_P L_, B i, l 715, 716 This reading makes _want_ a ”transitive” verb, but the other ain, thus Weld: ”_A verb in the imperative mode_, and the _transitive_ verbs _need, want_, and _require_, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, _without a noht; There _required_ haste in the business; There _needs_ no argu, &c There _wanted_ not men ould, &c The last expressions have an _active form with a passive sense_, and should perhaps rather be considered _elliptical_ than _wanting a noulish Grammar Illustrated_, p 143 Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical exaht,”--a kind of sentence from which the nominative is _usually suppressed_,--is here absurdly represented as being full, yet without a subject for its verb; while other examples, which are full, and in which the nominative _must follow_ the verb, because the adverb ”_there_” precedes, are first denied to have noly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!
(3) The idea of a co is coinated with Webster, by whoht, since 1807, as follows: ”In some cases, the imperative verb is used without a definite nominative”--_Philos Gram_, p 141; _Imp Gram_, 86; _Rudiments_, 69
See the sa similar: ”A verb in the i no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or iht'”--_School Gram_, p 141 But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of priht be there_” What else could itwhat or who is addressed by the i that it has no subject Nutting, puzzled with this word, estion: ”Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to _may_; or it may be termed itself an _i a command or an entreaty addressed to no particular person”--_Nutting's Practical Gram_, p 47
(4) These several errors, about the ”Imperative used Absolutely,” with ”no subject addressed,” as in ”_Let there be light_,” and the Indicative ”verbs NEED and WANT, employed without a noain carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology ”in its Elelish Grammar” See, in his edition of 1850, --597, Note 3 and Note 7; also --520, Note 2 Wells's authorities for ”Imperatives Absolute,” are, ”Frazee, Allen and Cornwell, Nutting, Lynde, and Chapin;”
and, with reference to ”NEED and WANT,” he says, ”See Webster, Perley, and Ingersoll”--_School Gram_, 1850, --209
(5) But, in obvious absurdity ely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: ”_Need_ and _dare_ are soeneral sense without a nominative_: as, 'There _needed_ no prophet to tell us that;' 'There _wanted_ no advocates to secure the voice of the people' It is better, however, to supply _it_, as a nominative, than admit an _anomala_ Sometimes, when intransitive, they have the _plural forular _noun_: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you'”--_Rev H W Bailey's E Gralish: _dare_ should be _dares_ ”He _need_ not _fear_,” if adht, is of the potential mood; in which no verb is inflected in the third person ”_He_,” too, is not a ”_noun_;” nor can it ever rightly have a ”_plural_” verb ”To supply _it_, as a nominative,” where the verb is declared to be ”_without a nominative_,” and to make ”_wanted_” an example of ”_dare_” are blunders precisely worthy of an author who knows not how to spell _anomaly!_
[387] This interpretation, and others like it, are given not only by _Murray_, but by rammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he See _Bicknell's Graer's_, 73; _Merchant's_, 100; _Picket's_, 211; _Fisk's_, 146; _D Adams's_, 81; _R C Smith's_, 182
[388] The same may be said of Dr Webster's ”_no but _phrases_ that include a norees And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing ”an _essential part_ of it,” is a flat absurdity? An _adjunct_ is ”so added to another, but _not essentially a part_ of it”--_Webster's Dict_ But, says the Doctor, ”Attributes and other words often make an _essential part_ of the no but an infinite succession of lad father; but a _foolish_ SON IS the heaviness of his mother' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposition cannot always be true 'HE _that gathereth in suathereth in summer_,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable These sentences or clauses thus _constituting_ the subject of an affirmation, may be termed _no ree work has been made with Gralish Parsing, a book designed ,” the following example is thus expounded: ”The smooth stream, the serene atentle temper, and a peaceful life”--_Murray's Exercises_, p 8 ”_The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr_, is part of a sentence, _which_ is the _noular verb neuter, in the indicative rees with the aforementioned part of a sentence_, as its no_, p 137 On this principle of _analysis_, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, ular_, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!
[389] ”No Relative can becoht's Philosophical Grammar_, p 162 ”A _personal_ pronoun becoh a _relative_ does not”--_Ib_, p 152 This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: ”Wright says that 'Personal pronouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative pronouns _can not be_ Yet he declines his relatives thus: 'Nominative case, _who_; possessive, _whose_; objective, _whom!”--Oliver B Peirce's Grammar_, p 331 This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the forly treats _hich, what, whatever_, &c, as relative pronouns of the nominative case--or, as he calls them, ”connective substitutes in the subjective form;” but when _what_ or _whatever_ precedes its noun, or when _as_ is preferred to _who_ or _which_, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously parse the verbs which belong to the relatives, _hich_, and _that_: as, ”Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself”--_Peirce's Gram_, p 55 Here Peirce considers _whatever_ to be a mere adjective, and _man_ the subject of _will adhere_ and _will find_ ”Such persons as write grarammarians”--_Ib_, p 330 Here he declares _as_ to be no pronoun, but ”aconnective,” ie, conjunction; and supposes _persons_ to be the direct subject of _write_ as well as of _should be_: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its no that, of words in apposition, the first ives to his example an other form thus: ”_Your master, I, commands you_ (not _colish It is the opinion of rammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, _ set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second But even if terms so used do not _assimilate_ in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above It ht to have the first place The following study-bred exarammatical: ”_I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry_”--_Hand-Book_, p
334
[391] Professor Fowler says, ”_One_ when contrasted with _other_, sometimes represents _plural nouns_; as, 'The reason why the _one_ are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the _other_ for bare powers, seems to be'--LOCKE”, _Fowler's E Gram_, 8vo, 1850, p 242 This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective For, if _one_ may be _plural_, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either nuarded as the leading words in their clauses; they areto the collective noun _class_ or _species_, understood, which should have been expressed after the former See Etym, Obs 19, p 276
[392] Dr Priestley says, ”It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh: [as,] _Minced pies was_ regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries
_Hureat _cause_ of the low state of industry _were_ the restraints put upon it _Ib_ By this term was understood, such _persons_ as invented, or drew up rules for thelish Gram with Notes_, p 189 The Doctor evidently supposed all these exalish_, or at least _harsh in their construction_ And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb
Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's ”_viand_”