Part 299 (1/2)
[417] Sooverned by a preposition is a ”_participial noun_;” and yet, when they co, their ”_noun_” becoain, and _not_ a ”_noun_” To alloords thus to _dodge_ from one class to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd A those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hurt, Weld, Wells, and S S Greene
[418] Dr Blair, to whoed himself indebted for this sentence, introduced _a noun_, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer: thus, ”It is disagreeable _for the _ on a hich does not, by itself, produce any idea”--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p 118 See Obs 10th and 11th on Rule 14th
[419] The perfect contrast between _frooverns the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this _to_ is the common preposition _to_ For exao forth _fro_ before the Lord of all the earth”--_Zech_, vi, 5 Now if this were rendered ”which go forth _to stand_,” &c, it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations Yet, probably froinal, the Greek version has beenforth _to stand_;” and the Latin, ”which go forth, _that they may stand_;” while the French text conveys nearly the sao forth _from the place where they stood_”
[420] _Cannot_, with a verb of _avoiding_, or with the negative _but_, is equivalent to _must_ Such examples may therefore be varied thus: ”I _cannot but mention_:” ie, ”I __ hie”--_Knox_ That is, ”I _cannot but exhort_ hi in _Kirkhaersoll's_, p
200; in _Smith's New Grammar_, p 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, ”_Participles_ frequently govern nouns _and_ pronouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his _ ended_ all his works, &c; I re_ in he said, &c”--_Kirkham's Gra to ance, or of accuracy Better: ”In case his _Majesty die_ without issue”--”_God_ having ended all his works”--”I rereat exploit”--”At my _entrance_, he said,” &c
[422] We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken _substantively_, ”it ought not to govern another word;” and, for the sa to it But ard these principles, and do not restrict their ”_participial nouns_” to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects For example: Because one may say, ”_To read superficially_, is useless,” Barnard supposes it right to say, ”_Reading superficially_ is useless” ”But the _participle_,” says he, ”will also take the adjective; as, '_Superficial reading_ is useless'”--_analytic Graht to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected Again, this author says: ”We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a _noun_ What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of _aa task so stupendous' The _entire clause_ following _man's_, is taken as a noun 'Of a man's _success_ in a task so stupendous' would present no difficulty A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, _thus often_ stands _for a noun_ 'My going will depend on '
A participle _thus used_ as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN”--_Ib_, p 131 I dislike this doctrine also In the first exa word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: ”There has been no instance of a __ a task so stupendous” It is also proper to say ”_My going_ will depend on _,” or, ”on my _father's consent_”
But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive If, therefore, youidea, insert _of_: thus, ”There has been no instance of a _ will depend onof_ his consent”--”My _brother's acquiring [of_] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels”--_Barnard's Gram_, p 227 If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, ”A superficial reading books is useless?” Again, Barnard approves of the question, ”What do you think ofto-day_?” and adds, ”Between this for, 'What do you think of _ to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in conte certainly exists_; but it would seem more judicious to treat _the latter_ as an i What can beto Niagara?' We should say _ht, _therefore_, to introduce so explanatory; as, 'What do you think _of the propriety_ of ara?”--_analytic Gram_, p 227 The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged auity Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle
[423] The following is an exaible, nor would it be at all amended, if the pronoun were put in the possessive case: ”I sy spared_ even one lash of the cart-whip”--REV DR THOMPSON: _Garrison, on Colonization_, p 80 And this is an other, in which the possessive pronoun would not be better: ”But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let the_ back”--_Antislavery Reporter_, Vol IV, p 223 Yet itback” In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with _as_, where soives us an idea of _hi the only person to whom it can be applied”--_Priestley's Gralish than to say, ”of _his_ being the only person?” The following is froood scholar: ”This ether, at _ constitutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand”--WILLIAM PENN: _Letter to Algernon Sidney_, Oct 13th, 1681 Here, if _me_ is objectionable, _ra of_ constitutions”
[424] Sometimes the passive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is sira committed_ to memory”--_Dr Barrow's Essays_, p 109 Better, perhaps:--”worth the trouble of _co the uttered at all, is worth _being spoken_ in a proper manner”--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p 68 Better, perhaps: ”What is worth _uttering_ at all, is worth _uttering_ in a proper manner”--G Brown
[425] ”RULE--When the participle expresses so is the DOER, it should have the article and preposition; as, 'It was said in _the hearing of_ the witness' When it expresses so is _not the doer_, but the OBJECT, both should be o_ the witness'”--BULLIONS, _Prin of E Gram_, p 108; _analyt and Pract
Gra true See Obs 12th, in this series, above--G B
[427] ”Dr Webster considers the use of _then_ and _above_ as ADNOUNS, [i
e, adjectives,] to be 'well authorized and very convenient;' as, the _then_ ministry; the _above_ remarks”--_Felch's Comp Gra words: ”_Then_ and _above_ are often used as ATTRIBUTES: [i e, adjectives; as,] the _then_ ministry; the _above_ remarks; nor would I prescribe this use It is well authorized and very convenient”--_Philos Gram_, p 245; _Improved Gram_, p 176 Of this use of _then_, Dr Crombie has expressed a very different opinion: ”Here _then_,” says he, ”the adverb equivalent to _at that ti with _round; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided”--_On Etym and Synt_, p 405
[428] W Allen supposes, ”An adverb sometimes qualifies a whole sentence: as, _Unfortunately_ for the lovers of antiquity, _no res have been preserved_”--_Ele Gram_, p 173 But this example may be resolved thus: ”_It happens_ unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, _that_ no res have been preserved”
[429] This assertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth I a reputable authors, ten tilish books--G BROWN
[430] Should not the Doctor have said, ”_are_ there _more_,” since ”_more than one_” must needs be plural? See Obs 10th on Rule 17th
[431] This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable We have also a late Aives a si of it_' Comber
_Never_ is here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly _as was never_ Though well authorized, it is disapproved by rammarians of the present day; and the word _ever_ is used instead of _never_”--_Felch's Comp Gralish as it stands; but, if the co, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, ”Though _everso justly_ deserving of it”--”_So justly as was never_,” is a positive degree that is not iinable; and what is this but an absurdity?
[432] Since this rerammar, (that of the ”_Rev Charles Ada ”the more frequent _improprieties_ committed, in conversation, '_Ary one_' for _either_, and '_nary one_' for _neither_”--_Adams's Systenorance A his ”_Improper pronunciations_” he puts down ”_Nary_” and ”_Ary_” and for ”_Corrections_”
of theives ”_neither_” and ”_either_”--_Gilbert's Catechetical Gram_, p 128 But these latter terms, _either_ and _neither_, are applicable only to _one of two_ things, and cannot be used where _ her soul with _many_ vows of faith, And _ne'er_ a true one”--_Shakspeare_
What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, ”And _neither_ a true one?” So soue erroneously through ignorance But these authors _condemn_ the errors which they here falsely suppose to be coe, no less a critic than Prof William C Fowler, has lately exhibited, _without disapprobation_, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localis,) which, he says, are mentioned by ”Mr
Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [_Dictionary] of Americanisms_” The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: ”ARY = either”--_Fowler's E Gram_, 8vo, N
Y, 1850, p 92
[433] The conjunction _that_, at the head of a sentence or clause, enables us to assuuments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these _three things: that_ soht or fit; or _that_ it is profitable and good”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 318 Here each _that_its own clause to the first clause in the sentence; or, to the word _things_ hich the three clauses are in a sort of apposition If we conceive it to have no such connecting poe must make this too an exception
[434] ”Note Then _and_ than are _distinct Particles_, but use hath ree at least _passable_ See _Butler's_ Eng Gra Particles_, Tenth Ed, 1691, p 333