Chapter CLXXXIV: Appendix: IV (8)

[263] Some grammarians, regardless of the general usage of authors, prefer _was_ to _were_ in the singular number of this tense of the subjunctive mood. In the following remark, the tense is named "_present_" and this preference is urged with some critical extravagance: "_Was_, though the past tense of the indicative mood, expresses the _present_ of the hypothetical; as, 'I wish that I _was_ well.' _The use of this hypothetical form_ of the subjunctive mood, _has given rise to_ a form of expression _wholly unwarranted by the rules of grammar_. When the verb _was_ is to be used in the _present tense singular_, in this form of the subjunctive mood, the ear is often pained with a _plural were_, as, '_Were I_ your master'--'_Were he_ compelled to do it,' &c. This has become so common that some of the best grammars of the language furnish authority for the barbarism, and even in the second person supply _wert_, as a convenient accompaniment. If such a conjugation is admitted, we may expect to see Shakspeare's '_thou beest_' in full use."--_Chandler's Gram._, Ed. of 1821, p. 55. In "_Chandler's Common School Grammar_," of 1847, the language of this paragraph is somewhat softened, but the substance is still retained. See the latter work, p. 80.

[264] "If I were, If _thou were_. If he were."--_Harrison's Gram._, p. 31. "If, or though, I were loved. If, or though, _thou were_, or _wert_ loved. If, or though, he were loved."--_Bicknell's Gram._, Part i, p. 69. "If, though, &c. I were burned, _thou were_ burned or you were burned, he were burned."--_Buchanan's Gram._, p. 53. "Though _thou were_. Some say, 'though thou _wert_.'"--_Mackintosh's Gram._, p. 178. "If or though I were. If or though _thou were_. If or though he were."--_St. Quentin's General Gram._, p. 86. "If I was, Thou wast, or You was or were, He was. Or thus: If I were, Thou wert, or you was or were, He were."--_Webster's Philosophical Gram._, p. 95; _Improved Gram._, p. 64. "PRESENT TENSE. Before, &c. I _be_; thou _beest_, or you _be_; he, she, or it, _be_: We, you or ye, they, _be_. PAST TENSE. Before, &c. I _were_; thou _wert_, or you _were_; he, she, or it, _were_; We, you or ye, they, _were_."--WHITE, _on the English Verb_, p. 52.

[265] The text in Acts, xxii, 20th, "I also _was standing_ by, and _consenting_ unto his death," ought rather to be, "I also _stood_ by, and _consented_ to his death;" but the present reading is, thus far, a literal version from the Greek, though the verb "_kept_," that follows, is not. Montanus renders it literally: "Et ipse _eram astans, et consentiens_ interemptioni ejus, et _custodiens_ vestimenta interficientium illum." Beza makes it better Latin thus: "Ego quoque _adstabam_, et una _assentiebar_ cædi ipsius, et _custodiebam_ pallia eorum qui interimebant eum." Other examples of a questionable or improper use of the progressive form may occasionally be found in good authors; as, "A promising boy of six years of age, _was missing_ by his parents."--_Whittier, Stranger in Lowell_, p. 100. _Missing, wanting_, and _willing_, after the verb to be, are commonly reckoned participial _adjectives_; but here "_was missing_" is made a passive verb, equivalent to _was missed_, which, perhaps, would better express the meaning. _To miss_, to perceive the absence of, is such an act of the mind, as seems unsuited to the compound form, _to be missing_; and, if we cannot say, "The mother _was missing_ her son," I think we ought not to use the same form passively, as above.

[266] Some grammarians, contrary to the common opinion, suppose the verbs here spoken of, to have, not a _passive_, but a _neuter_ signification. Thus, Joseph Guy, Jun., of London: "Active verbs often take a _neuter_ sense; as, A house is building; here, is _building_ is used in a _neuter_ signification, because it has no object after it. By this rule are explained such sentences as, Application is wanting; The grammar is printing; The lottery is drawing; It is flying, &c."--_Guy's English Gram._, p. 21. "_Neuter_," here, as in many other places, is meant to include the _active-intransitives_. "_Is flying_" is of this class; and "_is wanting_," corresponding to the Latin _caret_, appears to be neuter; hut the rest seem rather to be passives. Tried, however, by the usual criterion,--the naming of the "_agent_" which, it is said, "a verb passive necessarily implies,"--what may at first seem progressive passives, may not always be found such. "_Most_ verbs signifying _action_" says Dr. Johnson, "may likewise signify _condition_, or _habit_, and become _neuters_, [i. e. _active-intransitives_;] as _I love_, I am in love; _I strike_, I am now striking."--_Gram. before Quarto Dict._, p. 7. So _sell, form, make_, and many others, usually transitive, have sometimes an active-intransitive sense which nearly approaches the passive, and of which _are selling, is forming, are making_, and the like, may be only equivalent expressions. For example: "It is cold, and ice _forms_ rapidly--is _forming_ rapidly--or _is formed_ rapidly."--Here, with little difference of meaning, is the appearance of both voices, the Active and the Passive; while "_is forming_," which some will have for an example of "the _Middle_ voice," may be referred to either. If the following passive construction is right, _is wanting_ or _are wanting_ may be a verb of three or four different sorts: "Reflections that may drive away despair, _cannot be wanting by him_, who considers," &c.--_Johnson's Rambler_, No. 129: _Wright's Gram._, p. 196.

[267] Dr. Bullions, in his grammar of 1849, says, "Nobody would think of saying, 'He is being loved'--'This result is being desired.'"--_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 237. But, according to J. W. Wright, whose superiority in grammar has sixty-two titled vouchers, this unheard-of barbarism is, for the present passive, precisely and solely what one _ought_ to say! Nor is it, in fact, any more barbarous, or more foreign from usage, than the spurious example which the Doctor himself takes for a model in the active voice: "I _am loving_. Thou _art loving_, &c; I _have been loving_, Thou _hast been loving_, &c."--_A. and P. Gr._, p. 92. So: "James _is loving_ me."--_Ib._, p 235.

[268] "The predicate in the form, '_The house is being built_,' would be, according to our view, 'BEING BEING _built_,' which is manifestly an absurd tautology."--_Mulligan's Gram._, 1852, p. 151.

[269] "Suppose a criminal to be _enduring_ the operation of binding:--Shall we say, with Mr. Murray,--'The criminal is binding?' If so, HE MUST BE BINDING SOMETHING,--a circumstance, in effect, quite opposed to the fact presented. Shall we then say, as he does, in the _present tense_ conjugation of his passive verb,--'The criminal is bound?' If so, the _action_ of binding, which the criminal is suffering, will be represented as completed, --a position which the _action its self_ will palpably deny." See _Wright's Phil. Gram._, p. 102. It is folly for a man to puzzle himself or others thus, with _fictitious examples_, imagined on purpose to make _good usage seem wrong_. There is bad grammar enough, for all useful purposes, in the actual writings of valued authors; but who can show, by any proofs, that the English language, as heretofore written, is so miserably inadequate to our wants, that we need use the strange neologism, "The criminal _is being bound_," or any thing similar?

[270] It is a very strange event in the history of English grammar, that such a controversy as this should have arisen; but a stranger one still, that, after all that has been said, more argument is needed. Some men, who hope to be valued as scholars, yet stickle for an odd phrase, which critics have denounced as follows: "But the history of the language scarcely affords a parallel to the innovation, at once unphilosophical and hypercritical, pedantic and illiterate, which has lately appeared in the excruciating refinement '_is being_' and its unmerciful variations. We hope, and indeed believe, that it has not received the sanction of any grammar adopted in our popular education, as it certainly never will of any writer of just pretensions to scholarship."--_The True Sun_. N. Y., April 16, 1846.

[271] Education is a work of continuance, yet completed, like many others, as fast as it goes on. It is not, like the act of loving or hating, so complete at the first moment as not to admit the progressive form of the verb; for one may say of a lad, "I _am educating_ him for the law;" and possibly, "He _is educating_ for the law;" though not so well as, "He _is to be educated_ for the law." But, to suppose that "_is educated_" or "_are educated_" implies unnecessarily a _cessation of the educating_ is a mistake. That conception is right, only when _educated_ is taken adjectively. The phrase, "those who _are educated_ in our seminaries," hardly includes such as _have been educated_ there in times past: much less does it apply to these exclusively, as some seem to think. "_Being_," as inserted by Southey, is therefore quite _needless_: so it is _often_, in this new phraseology, the best correction being its mere omission.

[272] Worcester has also this citation: "The Eclectic Review remarks, 'That a need of this phrase, or an equivalent one, is felt, is sufficiently proved by the extent to which it is used by educated persons and respectable writers.'"--_Gram. before Dict._, p. xlvi. Sundry phrases, equivalent in sense to this new voice, have long been in use, and are, of course, still needed; something from among them being always, by every accurate writer, still preferred. But this awkward innovation, use it who will, can no more be justified by a plea of "_need_," than can every other hackneyed solecism extant. Even the Archbishop, if quoted right by Worcester, has descended to "uncouth English," without either necessity or propriety, having thereby only misexpounded a very common Greek word--a "perfect or pluperfect" participle, which means "_beaten, struck_, or _having been beaten_"--G. Brown.

[273] Wells has also the following citations, which most probably accord with his own opinions, though the first is rather extravagant: "The propriety of these _imperfect passive tenses_ has been _doubted by almost all_ our grammarians; though I believe but few of them have written many pages without condescending to make use of them. Dr. Beattie says, 'One of the greatest defects of the English tongue, with regard to the verb, seems to be the want of an _imperfect passive participle_.' And yet he uses the _imperfect participle_ in a _passive sense_ as often as most writers."--_Pickbourn's Dissertation on the English Verb_.

"Several other expressions of this sort now and then occur, such as the new-fangled and most uncouth solecism, 'is being done,' for the good old English idiomatic expression, 'is doing,'--an absurd periphrasis, driving out a pointed and pithy turn of the English language."--_N. A. Review_. See _Wells's Grammar_, 1850, p. 161.

The term, "_imperfect passive tenses_," seems not a very accurate one; because the present, the perfect, &c., are included. Pickbourn applies it to any passive tenses formed from the simple "imperfect participle;" but the phrase, "_passive verbs in the progressive form_," would better express the meaning. The term, "_compound passive participle_," which Wells applies above to "_being built_," "_being printed_," and the like, is also both unusual and inaccurate. Most readers would sooner understand by it the form, _having been built, having been printed_, &c. This author's mode of naming participles is always either very awkward or not distinctive. His scheme makes it necessary to add here, for each of these forms, a third epithet, referring to his main distinction of "_imperfect_ and _perfect_;" as, "the compound _imperfect_ participle passive," and "the compound _perfect_ participle passive." What is "_being builded_" or "_being printed_," but "an _imperfect passive participle_?" Was this, or something else, the desideratum of Beattie?

[274] _Borne_ usually signifies _carried_; _born_ signifies _brought forth_. J. K. Worcester, the lexicographer, speaks of these two participles thus: "[Fist] The participle _born_ is used in the passive form, and _borne_ in the active form, [with reference to birth]; as, 'He was _born_ blind,' _John_ ix.; 'The barren hath _borne_ seven,' I _Sam_. ii. This distinction between _born_ and _borne_, though not recognized by grammars, is in accordance with common usage, at least in this country. In many editions of the Bible it is recognized; and in many it is not. It seems to have been more commonly recognized in American, than in English, editions."--_Worcester's Universal and Critical Dict., w. Bear_. In five, out of seven good American editions of the Bible among my books, the latter text is, "The barren hath _born_ seven;" in two, it is as above, "hath _borne_." In Johnson's Quarto Dictionary, the perfect participle of _bear_ is given erroneously, "_bore_, or _born_;" and that of _forbear_, which should be _forborne_, is found, both in his columns and in his preface, "_forborn_."

[275] According to Murray, Lennie, Bullions, and some others, to use _begun_ for _began_ or _run_ for _ran_, is improper; but Webster gives _run_ as well as _ran_ for the preterit, and _begun_ may be used in like manner, on the authority of Dryden, Pope, and Parnell.

[276] "And they shall pass through it, hardly _bestead_, and hungry."--_Isaiah_, viii, 21.

[277] "_Brake_ [for the preterit of _Break_] seems now obsolescent."--_Dr. Crombie, Etymol. and Syntax_, p. 193. Some recent grammarians, however, retain it; among whom are Bullions and M'Culloch. Wells retains it, but marks it as, "_Obsolete_;" as he does also the preterits _bare, clave, drove, gat, slang, spake, span, spat, sware, tare, writ_; and the participles _hoven, loaden, rid_ from _ride, spitten, stricken, and writ_. In this he is not altogether consistent. Forms really obsolete belong not to any modern list of irregular verbs; and even such as are archaic and obsolescent, it is sometimes better to omit. If "_loaden_," for example, is now out of use, why should "_load, unload_, and _overload_," be placed, as they are by this author, among "irregular verbs;" while _freight_ and _distract_, in spite of _fraught_ and _distraught_, are reckoned regular? "_Rid_," for _rode_ or _ridden_, though admitted by Worcester, appears to me a low vulgarism.

[278] _Cleave_, to split, is most commonly, if not always, irregular, as above; _cleave_, to stick, or adhere, is usually considered regular, but _clave_ was formerly used in the preterit, and _clove_ still may be: as, "The men of Judah _clave_ unto their king."--_Samuel_. "The tongue of the public prosecutor _clove_ to the roof of his mouth."--_Boston Atlas_, 1855.

[279] Respecting the preterit and the perfect participle of this verb, _drink_, our grammarians are greatly at variance. Dr. Johnson says, "preter. _drank_ or _drunk_; part. pass, _drunk_ or _drunken_." Dr. Webster: "pret. and pp. _drank_. Old pret. and pp. _drunk_; pp. _drunken_." Lowth: "pret. _drank_; part, _drunk_ or _drunken_." So Stamford. Webber, and others. Murray has it: "Imperf. _drank_, Perf. Part, _drunk_." So Comly, Lennie, Bullions, Blair, Butler. Frost, Felton, Goldsbury, and many others. Churchill cites the text, "Serve me till I have eaten and _drunken_;" and observes, "_Drunken_ is now used only as an adjective. The impropriety of using the preterimperfect [_drank_] for the participle of this verb is very common."--_New Gram._, p. 261. Sanborn gives both forms for the participle, preferring _drank_ to _drunk_. Kirkham prefers _drunk_ to _drank_; but contradicts himself in a note, by unconsciously making _drunk_ an adjective: "The men were _drunk_; i. e. inebriated. The toasts were _drank_."--_Gram._, p. 140. Cardell, in his Grammar, gives, "_drink, drank, drunk_;" but in his story of Jack Halyard, on page 59, he wrote, "had _drinked_:" and this, according to Fowle's True English Grammar, is not incorrect. The preponderance of authority is yet in favour of saying, "had _drunk_;" but _drank_ seems to be a word of greater delicacy, and perhaps it is sufficiently authorized. A hundred late writers may be quoted for it, and some that were popular in the days of Johnson. "In the choice of what is fit to be eaten and _drank_."--_Beattie's Moral Science_, Vol. 1, p. 51. "Which I had no sooner _drank_."--_Addison, Tattler_, No. 131.

"Thy brother's blood the thirsty earth hath drank,
Broach'd with the steely point of Clifford's lance."--_Shakspeare_.

[280] "_Holden_ is not in general use; and is chiefly employed by attorneys."--_Crombie, on Etymology and Synt._, p. 190. Wells marks this word as, "Obsolescent."--_School Gram._, p. 103. L. Murray rejected it; but Lowth gave it alone, as a participle, and _held_ only as a preterit.

[281] "I have been found guilty of killing cats I never _hurted_."--_Roderick Random_, Vol. i, p. 8.

[282] "They _keeped_ aloof as they passed her bye."--_J. Hogg, Pilgrims of the Sun_, p. 19.

[283] _Lie_, to be at rest, is irregular, as above; but _lie_, to utter falsehood, is regular, as follows: _lie, lied, lying, lied_.

"Thus said, at least, my mountain guide,
Though deep, perchance, the villain _lied_."
--_Scott's Lady of the Lake_.

[284] Perhaps there is authority sufficient to place the verb _rend_ among those which are redundant.

"Where'er its cloudy veil was _rended_."
--_Whittier's Moll Pitcher_.

"Mortal, my message is for thee; thy chain to earth is _rended_;
I bear thee to eternity; prepare! thy course is ended."
--_The Amulet_.

"Come as the winds come, when forests are _rended_."
--_Sir W. Scott_.

"The hunger pangs her sons which rended."
--NEW QUARTERLY REVIEW: _Examiner_, No. 119.

[285] We find now and then an instance in which _gainsay_ is made regular: as, "It can neither be _rivalled_ nor _gainsayed_."--_Chapman's Sermons to Presbyterians_, p. 36. Perhaps it would be as well to follow Webster here, in writing _rivaled_ with one _l_: and the analogy of the simple verb _say_, in forming this compound irregularly, _gainsaid_. Usage warrants the latter, however, better than the former.

[286] "Shoe, _shoed_ or shod, shoeing, _shoed_ or shod."--_Old Gram., by W. Ward_, p. 64; and _Fowle's True English Gram._, p. 46.

[287] "A. Murray has rejected _sung_ as the _Preterite_, and L. Murray has rejected _sang_. Each _Preterite_, however, rests on good authority. The same observation may be made, respecting _sank_ and _sunk_. Respecting the _preterites_ which have _a_ or _u_, as _slang_, or _slung, sank_, or _sunk_, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the _Preterite_ and Participle would thus be discriminated."--_Dr. Crombie, on Etymology and Syntax_, p. 199. The _preterits_ which this critic thus prefers, are _rang, sang, stung, sprang, swang, sank, shrank, slank, stank, swam_, and _span_ for _spun_. In respect to them all, I think he makes an ill choice. According to his own showing, _fling, string_, and _sting_, always make the preterit and the participle alike; and this is the obvious tendency of the language, in all these words. I reject _slang_ and _span_, as derivatives from _sling_ and _spin_; because, in such a sense, they are obsolete, and the words have other uses. Lindley Murray, _in his early editions_, rejected _sang, sank, slang, swang, shrank, slank, stank_, and _span_; and, at the same time, preferred _rang, sprang_, and _swam_, to _rung, sprung_, and _swum_. In his later copies, he gave the preference to the _u_, in all these words; but restored _sang_ and _sank_, which Crombie names above, still omitting the other six, which did not happen to be mentioned to him.

[288] _Sate_ for the preterit of _sit_, and _sitten_ for the perfect participle, are, in my opinion, obsolete, or no longer in good use. Yet several recent grammarians prefer _sitten_ to _sat_; among whom are Crombie, Lennie, Bullions, and M'Culloch. Dr. Crombie says, "_Sitten_, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it."--_On Etymol. and Syntax_, p. 199. Lennie says, "Many authors, both here and in America, use _sate_ as the Past time of _sit_; but this is improper, for it is apt to be confounded with _sate_ to glut. _Sitten_ and _spitten_ are preferable [to _sat_ and _spit_,] though obsolescent."--_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 45. Bullions says, "_Sitten_ and _spitten_ are nearly obsolete, though preferable to _sat_ and _spit_."--_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 64. M'Culloch gives these verbs in the following form: "Sit, sat, sitten _or_ sat. Spit, spit _or_ spat, spit _or_ spitten."--_Manual of E. Gram._, p. 65.

[289] "He will find the political hobby which he has _bestrided_ no child's nag."--_The Vanguard, a Newspaper_.

"Through the pressed nostril, spectacle-_bestrid_."--_Cowper_.

"A lank haired hunter _strided_."--_Whittier's Sabbath Scene_.

[290] In the age of Pope, _writ_ was frequently used both for the participle and for the preterit of this verb. It is now either obsolete or peculiar to the poets. In prose it seems vulgar: as, "He _writ_ it, at least, published it, in 1670."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 77.

"He, who, supreme in judgement, as in wit,
Might boldly censure, as he boldly _writ_."--_Pope, Ess. on Crit._

Dr. Crombie remarked, more than thirty years ago, that, "_Wrote_ as the Participle [of _Write_,] is generally disused, and likewise _writ_."--_Treatise on Etym. and Synt._, p. 202.

[291] A word is not necessarily _ungrammatical_ by reason of having a rival form that is more common. The regular words, _beseeched, blowed, bursted, digged, freezed, bereaved, hanged, meaned, sawed, showed, stringed, weeped_, I admit for good English, though we find them all condemned by some critics.

[292] "And the man in whom the evil spirit was, _leapt_ on them."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: _Acts_, xix, 16. In Scott's Bible, and several others, the word is "_leaped_." Walker says, "The past time of this verb is _generally_ heard with the diphthong short; and if so, it ought to be spelled _leapt_, rhyming with _kept_."--_Walker's Pron. Dict., w. Leap_. Worcester, who improperly pronounces _leaped_ in two ways, "l~ept or l=ept," _misquotes_ Walker, as saying, "it ought to be spelled _lept_."--_Universal and Critical Dict., w. Leap_. In the solemn style, _leaped_ is, of course, two syllables. As for _leapedst_ or _leaptest_, I know not that either can be found.

[293] _Acquit_ is almost always formed regularly, thus: _acquit, acquitted, acquitting, acquitted._ But, like _quit_, it is sometimes found in an irregular form also; which, if it be allowable, will make it redundant: as, "To be _acquit_ from my continual smart."--SPENCER: _Johnson's Dict._ "The writer holds himself _acquit_ of all charges in this regard."--_Judd, on the Revolutionary War_, p. 5. "I am glad I am so _acquit_ of this tinder-box."--SHAK.

[294]

"Not know my voice! O, time's extremity!
Hast thou so crack'd and _splitted_ my poor tongue?"
--SHAK.: _Com. of Er._

[295] _Whet_ is made redundant in Webster's American Dictionary, as well as in Wells's Grammar; but I can hardly affirm that the irregular form of it is well authorized.

[296] In S. W. Clark's Practical Grammar, first published in 1847--a work of high pretensions, and prepared expressly "for the education of Teachers"--_sixty-three_ out of the foregoing ninety-five Redundant Verbs, are treated as having no regular or no irregular forms. (1.) The following twenty-nine are _omitted_ by this author, as if they were _always regular_; belay, bet, betide, blend, bless, curse, dive, dress, geld, lean, leap, learn, mulet, pass, pen, plead, prove, rap, reave, roast, seethe, smell, spoil, stave, stay, wake, wed, whet, wont. (2.) The following thirty-four are _given_ by him as being _always irregular_; abide, bend, beseech, blow, burst, catch, chide, creep, deal, freeze, grind, hang, knit, lade, lay, mean, pay, shake, sleep, slide, speed, spell, spill, split, string, strive, sweat, sweep, thrive, throw, weave, weep, wet, wind. Thirty-two of the ninety-five are made redundant by him, though not so called in his book.

In Wells's School Grammar, "the 113th Thousand," dated 1850, the deficiencies of the foregoing kinds, if I am right, are about fifty. This author's "List of Irregular Verbs" has forty-four Redundants, to which he assigns a regular form as well as an irregular. He is here about as much nearer right than Clark, as this number surpasses thirty-two, and comes towards ninety-five. The words about which they differ, are--_pen, seethe_, and _whet_, of the former number; and _catch, deal, hang, knit, spell, spill, sweat_, and _thrive_, of the latter.

[297] In the following example, there is a different phraseology, which seems not so well suited to the sense: "But we _must be aware_ of imagining, that we render style strong and expressive, by a constant and multiplied use of epithets"--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 287. Here, in stead of "_be aware_," the author should have said, "_beware_," or "_be ware_;" that is, be _wary_, or _cautious_; for _aware_ means _apprised_, or _informed_, a sense very different from the other.

[298] Dr. Crombie contends that _must_ and _ought_ are used only in the present tense. (See his _Treatise_, p. 204.) In this he is wrong, especially with regard to the latter word. Lennie, and his copyist Bullions, adopt the same notion; but Murray, and many others, suppose them to "have both a present and [a] past signification."

[299] Dr. Crombie says, "This Verb, as an auxiliary, is _inflexible_; thus we say, 'he _will_ go;' and 'he _wills to_ go.'"--_Treatise on Etym. and Syntax_, p. 203. He should have confined his remarks to the _familiar style_, in which all the auxiliaries, except _do, be_, and _have_, are inflexible. For, in the solemn style, we do not say, "Thou _will_ go," but, "Thou _wilt_ go."

[300] "HAD-I-WIST. A proverbial expression, _Oh_ that I had known. _Gower_."--_Chalmers's Dict._, also _Webster's_. In this phrase, which is here needlessly compounded, and not very properly explained, we see _wist_ used as a perfect participle. But the word is obsolete. "_Had I wist_," is therefore an obsolete phrase, meaning. If I had known, or, "_O_ that I had known."

[301] That is, passive verbs, as well as others, have three participles for each; so that, from one active-transitive root, there come _six_ participles--three active, and three passive. Those numerous grammarians who, like Lindley Murray, make passive verbs a distinct class, for the most part, very properly state the participles of a _verb_ to be "_three_;" but, to represent the two voices as modifications of one species of verbs, and then say, "The Participles are _three_," as many recent writers do, is manifestly absurd: because _two threes should be six_. Thus, for example, Dr. Bullions: "In English [,] the _transitive_ verb has always _two voices_, the Active and [the] Passive."--_Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 33. "The Participles are _three_, [:] the Present, the _Perfect_, and the _Compound Perfect_."--_Ib._, p. 57. Again: "_Transitive_ verbs have two voices, called the _Active_ and the _Passive_."--_Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 66. "Verbs have _three_ participles--the _present_, the _past_, and the _perfect_; as, _loving, loved, having loved_, in the active voice: AND _being loved, loved, having been loved_, in the passive."--_Ib._, p. 76. Now either not all these are the participles of _one_ verb, or that verb has _more than three_. Take your choice. Redundant verbs usually have _duplicate forms_ of all the participles except the Imperfect Active; as, _lighting, lighted_ or _lit, having lighted_ or _having lit_; so again, _being lighted_ or _being lit, lighted_ or _lit, having been lighted_ or _having been lit_.

[302] The diversity in the _application_ of these names, and in the number or nature of the participles recognized in different grammars, is quite as remarkable as that of the names themselves. To prepare a general synopsis of this discordant teaching, no man will probably think it worth his while. The following are a few examples of it:

1. "How many Participles, are there; There are two, the Active Participle which ends in (ing), as burning, and the Passive Participle which ends in (ed) as, burned."--_The British Grammar_, p. 140. In this book, the participles of _Be_ are named thus: "ACTIVE. Being. PASSIVE. Been, having been."--_Ib._, p. 138.

2. "How many _Sorts_ of Participles are there? _A_. Two; the Active Participle, that ends always in _ing_; as, _loving_, and the Passive Participle, that ends always in _ed, t_, or _n_; as, _loved, taught, slain_."--_Fisher's Practical New Gram._, p. 75.

3. "ACTIVE VOICE. _Participles_. Present, calling. Past, having called. Future, being about to call. PASSIVE VOICE. Present, being called. Past, having been called. Future, being about to be called."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, pp. 55 and 59.

4. ACT. "Present, loving; Perfect, loved; Past, having loved."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 39. The participles _passive_ are not given by Lowth; but, by inference from his rule for forming "the passive verb," they must be these: "Present, being loved; Perfect, loved, or been loved; Past, having been loved." See _Lowth's Gram._, p. 44.

5. "ACT. V. _Present_, Loving. _Past_, Loved. _Perfect_, Having loved. PAS. V. _Pres_. Being loved. _Past_, Loved. _Perf_. Having been loved."--_Lennie's Gram._, pp. 25 and 33; _Greene's Analysis_, p. 225; _Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, pp. 87 and 95. This is Bullions's _revised_ scheme, and much worse than his former one copied from Murray.

6. ACT. "_Present._ Loving. _Perfect._ Loved. _Compound Perfect_, Having loved." PAS. "_Present._ Being loved. _Perfect or Passive._ Loved. _Compound Perfect._ Having been loved."--_L. Murray's late editions_, pp. 98 and 99; _Hart's Gram._, pp. 85 and 88; _Bullions's Principles of E. Gram._, pp. 47 and 55. No form or name of the first participle passive was adopted by Murray in his early editions.

7. ACT. "Present. Pursuing. Perfect. Pursued. Compound perfect. Having pursued." PAS. "_Present and Perfect_. Pursued, or being pursued. _Compound Perfect_. Having been pursued."--_Rev. W. Allen's Gram._, pp. 88 and 93. Here the first two passive forms, and their names too, are thrown together; the former as equivalents, the latter as coalescents.

8. "TRANSITIVE. _Pres._ Loving, _Perf._ Having loved. PASSIVE. _Pres._ Loved or Being loved, _Perf._ Having been loved."--_Parkhurst's Gram. for Beginners_, p. 110. Here the second active form is wanting; and the second passive is confounded with the first.

9. ACT. "_Imperfect_, Loving [;] _Perfect_, Having loved [.]" PAS. "_Imperfect_, Being loved [;] _Perfect_, Loved, Having been loved."--_Wells's School Gram._, pp. 99 and 101. Here, too, the second active is not given; the third is called by the name of the second; and the second passive is confounded with the _third_, as if they were but forms of the same thing.

10. ACT. "_Imperfect_, (_Present_,) Loving. _Perfect_. Having loved. _Auxiliary Perfect_, Loved." PAS. "_Imperfect_, (_Present_,) Being loved. _Perfect_, Having been loved. _Passive_, Loved."--_N. Butler's Pract. Gram._, pp. 84 and 91. Here the common order of most of the participles is very improperly disturbed, and as many are misnamed.

11. ACT. "Present, Loving [;] Perfect, Loved [;] Comp. Perf. Having loved [.]" PAS. "Present, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, or been loved [;] Compound Perfect, Having been loved."--_Frazee's Improved Gram._, 63 and 73. Here the second participle passive has two forms, one of which, "_been loved_," is not commonly recognized, except as part of some passive verb or preperfect participle.

12. ACT. V. "_Imperfect_, Seeing. _Perfect_, Seen. _Compound_, Having seen." PAS. V. "_Preterimperfect_, Being seen. _Preterperfect_, Having been seen."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 102. Here the chief and radical passive participle is lacking, and neither of the compounds is well named.

13. ACT. "_Present_, Loving, [;] _Past_, Loved, [;] _Com. Past_, Having loved." PAS. "_Present_, Being loved. [;] _Past_, Loved. [;] _Com. Past._ [,] Having been loved."--_Felton's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, of 1843, pp. 37 and 50.

14. ACT. "Present. [,] Loving. [;] Perfect. [,] Loved. [;] Compound Perfect. [,] Having loved." PAS. "Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."--_Bicknell's Gram. Lond._, 1790, Part I, pp. 66 and 70; _L. Murray's_ 2d _Edition, York_, 1796, pp. 72 and 77. Here "_Being loved_," is not noticed.

15. "_Participles. Active Voice. Present._ Loving. _Past_. Loved, or having loved. _Participles. Passive Voice. Present._ Being loved. _Past_. Having been loved."--_John Burn's Practical Gram._, p. 70. Here the chief Passive term, "Loved," is omitted, and two of the active forms are confounded.

16. "_Present_, loving, _Past_, loved, _Compound_, having loved."--_S. W. Clark's Practical Gram._, of 1848, p. 71. "ACT. VOICE.--_Present_ ... Loving [;] _Compound_ [,] Having loved...... _Having been loving_."--_Ib._, p. 81. "PAS. VOICE.--_Present_..... Loved, or, being loved [;] _Compound_..... Having been loved."--_Ib._, p. 83. "The Compound Participle consists of _the_ Participle of a principal verb, added to the word _having_, or _being_, or to the two words _having been_. Examples--Having loved--_being loved_--having been loved."--_Ib._, p. 71. Here the second extract is _deficient_, as may be seen by comparing it with the first; and the fourth is _grossly erroneous_, as is shown by the third. The participles, too, are misnamed throughout.

The reader may observe that the _punctuation_ of the foregoing examples is very discrepant. I have, in brackets, suggested some corrections, but have not attempted a general adjustment of it.

[303] "The _most unexceptionable_ distinction which grammarians make between the participles, is, that the one points to the continuation of the action, passion, or state denoted by the verb; and the other, to the completion of it. Thus, the present participle signifies _imperfect_ action, or action begun and not ended: as, 'I am _writing_ a letter.' The past participle signifies action _perfected_, or finished: as, 'I have _written_ a letter.'--'The letter is written.'"--_Murray's Grammar_, 8vo, p. 65. "The first [participle] expresses a _continuation_; the other, a _completion_."--_W. Allen's Grammar_, 12mo, London, 1813. "The idea which this participle [e.g. '_tearing_'] really expresses, is simply that of the _continuance_ of an action in an _incomplete_ or _unfinished_ state. The action may belong to time _present_, to time _past_, or to time _future_. The participle which denotes the _completion_ of an action, as _torn_, is called the _perfect_ participle; because it represents the action as _perfect_ or _finished_."--_Barnard's Analytic Gram._, p. 51. Emmons stealthily copies from my Institutes as many as ten lines in defence of the term '_Imperfect_' and yet, in his conjugations, he calls the participle in _ing_, "_Present_." This seems inconsistent. See his "_Grammatical Instructer_," p. 61.

[304] "The ancient termination (from the Anglo-Saxon) was _and_; as, 'His _schynand_ sword.' Douglas. And sometimes _ende_; as, 'She, between the deth and life, _Swounende_ lay full ofte.' Gower."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 88. "The present Participle, in Saxon, was formed by _ande, ende_, or _onde_; and, by cutting off the final _e_, it acquired a Substantive signification, and extended the idea to the agent: as, _alysende_, freeing, and _alysend_, a redeemer; _freonde_, loving or friendly, and _freond_, a lover or a friend."--_Booth's Introd. to Dict._, p. 75.

[305] William B. Fowle, a modern disciple of Tooke, treats the subject of grammatical time rather more strangely than his master. Thus: "How many times or tenses have verbs? _Two_, [the] present and [the] _past_," To this he immediately adds in a note: "We _do not believe_ in a _past_ any more than a future tense of verbs."--_The True English Gram._, p. 30. So, between these two authors, our verbs will retain no tenses at all. Indeed, by his two tenses, Fowle only meant to recognize the two simple forms of an English verb. For he says, in an other place, "We repeat our conviction that no verb in itself expresses time of any sort."--_Ib._, p. 69,

[306] "STONE'-BLIND," "STONE'-COLD," and "STONE'-DEAD," are given in Worcester's Dictionary, as compound _adjectives_; and this is perhaps their best classification; but, if I mistake not, they are usually accented quite as strongly on the latter syllable, as on the former, being spoken rather as two emphatic words. A similar example from Sigourney, "I saw an infant _marble cold_," is given by Frazee under this Note: "Adjectives sometimes belong to other adjectives; as, '_red hot_ iron.'"--_Improved Gram._, p. 141. But Webster himself, from whom this doctrine and the example are borrowed, (see his Rule XIX,) makes "RED'-HOT" but one word in his Dictionary; and Worcester gives it as one word, in a less proper form, even without a hyphen, "RED'HOT."

[307] "OF ENALLAGE.--The construction which may be reduced to this figure in English, chiefly appears when one part of speech, is used with the power and effect of another."--_Ward's English Gram._, p. 150.

[308] _Forsooth_ is _literally_ a word of affirmation or assent, meaning _for truth_, but it is now almost always used _ironically_: as, "In these gentlemen whom the world _forsooth_ calls wise and solid, there is generally either a moroseness that persecutes, or a dullness that tires you."--_Home's Art of Thinking_, p. 24.

[309] In most instances, however, the words _hereof, thereof_, and _whereof_, are placed after _nouns_, and have nothing to do with any _verb_. They are therefore not properly _adverbs_, though all our grammarians and lexicographers call them so. Nor are they _adjectives_; because they are not used adjectively, but rather in the sense of a pronoun governed by _of_; or, what is nearly the same thing, in the sense of the possessive or genitive case. Example: "And the fame _hereof_ went abroad."--_Matt._, ix, 26. That is, "the fame _of this miracle_;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.

[310] _Seldom_ is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the _seldomest_, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative _often_, was sometimes used _adjectively_; as, "Thine _often_ infirmities."--_1 Tim._, v, 23. "I hope God's Book hath not been my _seldomest_ lectures."--_Queen Elizabeth_, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb _forward_: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little _forwarder_ to the teeth."--_Pron. Dict., Principles_, No. 55.

[311] A few instances of the _regular inflection_ of adverbs ending in _ly_, may be met with in _modern_ compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring _sweetlier_ in the echo."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would _safelier_ stand the test."--_Coleridge's Biog. Lit._, Vol. ii, p. 53.

[312] De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative pronouns "_Conjunctive Adjectives_." See _Fosdick's Translation_, p. 57. He also says, "The words _who, which_, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive _Nouns_ and _Adverbs_, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can substitute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words _who, which_, etc. Thus, _when, where, what, how, as_, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish _when_ I please;' that is, 'I shall finish _at the time at which_ I please.'--'I know not _where_ I am;' i.e. 'I know not _the place in which_ I am.'"--_Ib._, p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive _adverbs_, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word _who_ appears to me to be a pronoun, and not an adjective; and of his "_Conjunctive Nouns_," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.

[313] "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows--_a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making_ TWO _or more significant Sentences to be_ ONE _significant Sentence_."--_Harris's Hermes_, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.

[314] Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho parsed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be parsed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the _nature and construcion [sic--KTH] of a single word_," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, analyze. As examples of "a _conjunctional phrase_," he gives "_as if_ and "_as though_."--_Gram._, p. 25. But when he comes to speak of _ellipsis_, he says: "After the conjunctions _than, as, but_, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [_that is which_] will suffice;' 'He acted _as_ [_he would act_] _if_ he were mad.'"--_Ib._, p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.

[315] Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt. Harrison cites a good example; pronounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "_In_ the following sentence, the relative pronoun is three times omitted:--'Is there a God to swear _by_, and is there none to believe _in_, none to trust _to_?'--_Letters and Essays, Anonymous_. _By, in_, and _to_, as prepositions, stand alone, _denuded of the relatives_ to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."--_Harrison's English Language_, p. 196.

[316] "An ellipsis of _from_ after the adverb _off_ has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted _incorrectly_ among the prepositions. Ex. 'off (from) his horse.'"--_Hart's Gram._, p. 96. _Off_ and _on_ are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "_from_" after the former, than _to_ after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down _off_ that bed _on_ which thou art gone up."--2 _Kings_, i, 16.

[317] "_Who consequently_ reduced the _greatest_ part of the island TO their own power."--_Swift, on the English Tongue_. "We can say, that _one nation reduces another_ TO _subjection_. But when _dominion_ or _power_ is used, we always, _as_ [so] far as I know, say, _reduce_ UNDER _their power_" [or _dominion_]--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 229.

[318] "_O foy_, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."--DOUBLE DEALER: _Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 305.

[319] According to Walker and Webster, _la_ is pronounced _law_; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French _la_, which is pronounced _lah_. Johnson and Webster make _la_ and _lo_ synonymous; deriving _lo_ from the Saxon _la_, and _la_ either from _lo_ or from the French _la_. "_Law_, how you joke, cousin."--_Columbian Orator_, p. 178. "_Law_ me! the very ghosts are come now!"--_Ibid._ "_Law_, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"--_Ibid._

"_La_ you! If you speak ill of the devil,
How he takes it at heart!"--SHAKESPEARE: _Joh. Dict., w. La._

[320] The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"--_Newspaper_. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"--_Shakespeare_. "Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"--_Id._ "Suits my complexion--_hey_, gal? so I think."--_Yankee Schoolmaster_. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"--SCOTT'S IVANHOE: _Fowler's E. Gram._, §29.

[321] Though _oh_ and _ah_ are most commonly used as signs of these depressing passions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "_Ah_, pleasant proof," &c.--_Cowper's Task_, p. 179. "Merrily _oh!_ merrily _oh!_"--_Moore's Tyrolese Song_. "Cheerily _oh!_ cheerily _oh!_"--_Ib._ But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection _O_: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and substitute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.

[322] This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The _object_ cannot properly be called one of the principal parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be _the object of a transitive verb_; as, 'I wish _to ride_;' 'I wish _you to ride_.'"--_Ib._, p. 37. Or, with the _contrary_ notion, that, "An infinitive may be _the object of a_ _preposition_, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish _for you to ride_.'"--_Ibid._ But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (_Ib._, p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words _added to verbs_, and sometimes to other words, to _qualify_ their meaning."--_Ib._, p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere _adjuncts_ may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the _true_ object of the transitive verb _is one of the principal_ _parts_ of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.

[323] Some writers distinguish sentences as being of _three_ kinds, _simple_, and _complex_, and _compound_; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound. A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is _simple_; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is _complex_; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is _compound_."--_Greene's Analysis_, p. 3. The term _compound_, as applied to sentences, is not _usually_ so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A _Simple Sentence_ contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The _sun shines_.' A _Complex Sentence_ contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The _sun_ and the _stars_ shine.' 'The sun _rises_ and _sets_.' 'The _sun_ and the _stars rise_ and _set_.' A _Compound Sentence_ is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The _sun shines_, and the _stars twinkle_.' 'The _sun rises_ and _sets_, as the _earth revolves_.'"--_Pinneo's English Teacher_, p. 10; _Analytical Gram._, pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a _complex sentence_ is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripartite distribution.

[324] The terms _clause_ and _member_, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called _clauses_; and those separated by semicolons, are called _members_."--_Hiley' s Gram._, p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a _clause_. When the _members_ of a compound sentence are complex, they are _subdivided_ into _clauses_; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 128. By some authors, the terms _clause_ and _phrase_ are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import. Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "_composing frequently_," is absurdly called a _clause_; "an entire _clause_ of a sentence."--See _Murray's Gram._, p. 179; _Alger's_, 61; _Fisk's_, 108; _Ingersoll's_, 180; _Merchant's_, 84; _R. C. Smith's_, 152; _Weld's_, 2d Ed., 150. The term _sentence_ also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "_James and William_," "_Thomas and John_," and others similar, are called "sentences."--_Smith's New Gram._, pp. 9 and 10. So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A _whole sentence_ is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' _Being a young man_, is the object of the preposition _of_."--_Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "_being a young man_," here depends upon "_of_;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "_being_." The construction of the word "_man_" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all _agreement_ consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but _government_ is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word _in parsing_ never governs the same word _which_ it qualifies, or with which it agrees."--_Practical Gram._, p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case _governs_ a verb."--_Ib._ p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following _untrue_, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, _an consequently agrees with_, the preceding word."--_Exercises_, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, _and consequently agrees with it_."--_Key_, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form. See the same example, with the same variation of it, in _Smith's New Gram._, p. 167; and, without the change, in _Ingersoll's_, p. 233; _and Fisk's_, 141.

[326] It has been the notion of some grammarians, that _the verb governs the nominative before it_. This is an old rule, which seems to have been very much forgotten by modern authors; though doubtless it is as true, and as worthy to be perpetuated, as that which supposes the nominative to govern the verb: "Omne verbum personale finiti modi regit ante se expresse vel subaudite ejusdem numeri et personæ nominativum vel aliquid pro nominativo: ut, _ego scribo, tu legis, ille auscultat_."--DESPAUTERII SYNT. fol. xvi. This Despauter was a laborious author, who, within fifty years after the introduction of printing, complains that he found his task heavy, on account of the immense number of books and opinions which he had to consult: "Necdum tamen huic operi ultimam manum aliter imposui, quam Apelles olim picturis: siquidem aptius exire, quum in multis tum in hac arte est difficillimum, _propter librorum legendorum immensitatem_, et opinionum innumeram diversitatem."--_Ibid., Epist. Apologetica_, A. D. 1513. But if, for this reason, the task was heavy _then_, what is it _now_!

[327] Nutting's rule certainly implies that _articles_ may relate to _pronouns_, though he gives no example, nor can he give any that is now good English; but he may, if he pleases, quote some other modern grammatists, who teach the same false doctrine: as, "RULE II. _The article refers to its noun_ (OR PRONOUN) _to limit its signification_."--R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 18. Greene's two grammars are used extensively in the state of Maine, but they appear to be little known anywhere else. This author professes to inculcate "the principles established by Lindley Murray." If veracity, on this point, is worth any thing, it is a pity that in both books there are so many points which, like the foregoing parenthesis, belie this profession. He followed here Ingersoll's RULE IV, which is this: "_The article refers to a noun_ OR PRONOUN, _expressed or understood, to limit its signification_."-- _Conversations on E. Gram._, p. 185.

[328] It is truly a matter of surprise to find under what _titles_ or _heads_, many of the rules of syntax have been set, by some of the best scholars that have ever written on grammar. In this respect, the Latin and Greek grammarians are particularly censurable; but it better suits my purpose to give an example or two from one of the ablest of the English. Thus that elegant scholar the Rev. W. Allen: "SYNTAX OF NOUNS. 325. A verb agrees with its nominative case in number and person."--_Elements of E. Gram._, p. 131. This is in no wise the syntax of _Nouns_, but rather that of _the Verb_. Again: "SYNTAX OF VERBS. 405. Active Verbs govern the accusative case; as, I love _him_. We saw _them_. God rules the _world_."--_Ib._, p. 161. This is not properly the syntax of _Verbs_, but rather that of _Nouns_ or _Pronouns_ in the accusative or objective case. Any one who has but the least sense of order, must see the propriety of referring the rule to that sort of words to which it is applied in parsing, and not some other. Verbs are never parsed or construed by the latter of these rules nor nouns by the former.