Chapter CLXXXVI: Appendix: IV (10)

[366] Professor Fowler absurdly says, "_Nigh, near, next, like_, when followed by the objective case, _may be regarded either_ as Prepositions or as Adjectives, _to_ being understood."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, §458, Note 7. Now, "_to_ being understood," it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be complex, and to be partly suppressed. This can be nothing 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 know of which sort it is; call it what you please!" With decision prompt enough, but with too little regard to analogy or consistency, Latham and Child say, "The adjective _like governs a case_, and it is the only adjective that does so."--_Elementary Gram._, p. 155. In teaching thus, they seem to ignore these facts: that _near_, _nigh_, or _opposite_, might just as well be said to be an adjective governing a case; and that the use of _to_ or _unto_ after _like_ has been common enough 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 etymology! See _Gram. of E. Gram._, p. 259. In grammar, 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_ them, were _like_ TIMAO."--_Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang._, Vol. ii, p. 128. "The old German, and even the modern German, are much _liker to_ the Visigothic than they are to the dialect of the Edda."--_Ib._, i, 330. "Proximus finem, _nighest_ the end."--_Ib._, ii, 150. "Let us now come _nearer to_ our own language."--_Dr. Blair's Rhet._, p. 85. "This looks _very like_ a paradox."--BEATTIE: _Murray's Gram._, Vol. i, p. 113. "He was _near_ [to] falling."--_Ib._, p. 116. Murray, who puts _near_ into his list of prepositions, gives this example to show how "_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 shilling," he takes the word _worth_ to be a noun "in _apposition_ to the word _shilling_." And to prove it so, he puts the sentence successively into these four forms: "My cane is _worth_ or _value_ for a shilling;"--"The _worth_ or _value_ of my cane is a shilling;"--"My cane is a _shilling's worth_;"--"My cane is _the worth of_ a shilling."--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 150. In all these transmutations, _worth_ is unquestionably a noun; but, in none of them, is it in apposition with the word _shilling_; and he is quite mistaken in supposing that they "indispensably prove the word in question to be a _noun_." There are other authors, who, with equal confidence, and equal absurdity, call _worth_ a _verb_. For example: "A noun, which signifies the price, is put in the objective case, without a preposition; as, 'my book is _worth_ twenty shillings.' _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 who will 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 may be formed, would change the nature of the word, without giving the sentence a different meaning."--_Chandler's Gram._, Old Ed., p. 155; New Ed., p. 181.

[370] Cowper here purposely makes Mrs. Gilpin use bad English; but this is no reason why a school-boy may not be taught 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. Enfield misunderstood this passage; and, in copying it into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing _we_ to _us_: as if the meaning were, "Making us fools of nature." But it is plain, that all "fool's of nature!" must be fools of nature's own making, and not persons temporarily frighted out of their wits by a ghost; nor does the meaning of 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 examples are wrong: 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 commonly, if not always, use the latter in its primitive or singular 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 merely by implication or supplement, under the figure which is called _zeugma_: as, "Two or more nouns joined together 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 Grammar_, p. 155.

[375] The learned William B. Fowle strangely imagines all pronouns to be _adjectives_, belonging to nouns expressed or understood after them; as, "We kings require _them_ (subjects) to obey _us_ (kings)."--_The True English Gram._, p. 21. "_They_ grammarians, [i. e.] _those_ grammarians. _They_ is an other spelling of _the_, and of course means _this, that, these, those_, as the case may be."--_Ibid._ According to him, then, "_them grammarians_," for "_those grammarians_," is perfectly good English; and so is "_they grammarians_," though the vulgar do not take care to _vary this adjective_, "as _the case_ may be." His notion of subjoining a noun to every pronoun, is a fit counterpart to that of some other grammarians, who imagine 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 lower world. Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation. The Palace (it) stands on a Hill. Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures."--_British Gram._, p. 234; _Buchanan's_, 131. It would have been worth a great deal to some men, to have known _what an Ellipsis is_; and the man who shall yet make such knowledge common, ought to be forever honoured in the schools.

[376] "An illegitimate and ungrammatical 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 them could be recognized.' 'Here are _fifty_ pens, you will find that _either_ of them will do.'"--MATT. HARRISON, _on the English Language_, 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 man may say, "_the whole thing_," when he means, "_all the thing_;" but he must not call _all things, 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 encompass and embrace the _all_ of things."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 59.

[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 own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning 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 implied in the address of his messenger: as, "_Children_, you must come in."

[380] The propriety of this construction is questionable. See Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.

[381] Among the authors who have committed this great 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; _Emmons's_, 26. "_You_ is of the Plural Number, even though used as the Name of a single Person."--_W. Ward's Gram._, p. 88. "Altho' the Second Person Singular in both Times be marked with _thou_, to distinguish it from the Plural, yet we, out of Complaisance, though we speak but to one particular Person, use _the Plural you_, and never thou, but when we address ourselves to Almighty God, or when we 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 matrimonial mission for his son, to discharge his mission with all fidelity."--_Milman's Jews_, i, 21. See Etymology, Chap. 5th, Obs. 23d, 24th, &c., on the Classes of Pronouns.

[384] Murray imagined this sentence to be bad English. He very strangely mistook the pronoun _he_ for the object of the preposition _with_; and accordingly condemned the text, under the rule, "Prepositions govern 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 form of the latter, are quite as good as his proposed substitutes: "It was not _with him_, that they were so angry."--_Murray's Key_, p. 51. "It is not _with me_ he is engaged."--_Ib._ In these fancied corrections, the phrases _with him_ and _with me_ have a very awkward and questionable position: it seems doubtful, whether they depend on _was_ and _is_, or on _angry_ 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 as make different impressions on the mind. _I is_ the being of _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 grammar "denote _qualities_ of existence." But, supposing 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 example, which I take to be bad English: "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 manifest absurdity in saying, 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 Grammar,--a perversion worthy only of the veriest ignoramus. Yet Greenleaf profitably publishes it, with other plagiarisms, for "Grammar Simplified!" Now the verb "_needs_," like the Latin _eget_, 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 them; as, "Peradventure _there shall lack five_ of the fifty righteous."--_Gen._, xviii, 28. There is therefore neither "_irregularity_," nor any thing "_peculiar_," in thus placing the verb and its nominative.

(2.) Yet have we other grammarians, who, with astonishing facility, have allowed themselves to be misled, and whose books are now misleading the schools, in regard to this very simple matter. Thus Wells: "The _transitive_ verbs _need_ and _want_, are sometimes employed in a general sense, _without a nominative_, expressed or implied. Examples:--'There _needed_ a new dispensation.'--_Caleb Cushing_. '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 makes it neuter, with the nominative following it. Again, thus Weld: "_A verb in the imperative mode_, and the _transitive_ verbs _need, want_, and _require_, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, _without a nominative_; as, _let_ there be light; There _required_ haste in the business; There _needs_ no argument for proving, &c. There _wanted_ not men who would, &c. The last expressions have an _active form with a passive sense_, and should perhaps rather be considered _elliptical_ than _wanting a nominative_; as, _haste is required, no argument is needed_, &c."--_Weld's English Grammar Illustrated_, p. 143. Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical example, "_Let_ there be light,"--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 nominatives, and then most bunglingly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!

(3.) The idea of a command _wherein no person or thing is commanded_, seems to have originated with Webster, by whom it has been taught, 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 same words in _Frazee's Gram._, p. 133. Wells has something similar: "A verb in the imperative is sometimes used _absolutely_, having no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or implied; as, 'And God said, _Let_ there be light.'"--_School Gram._, p. 141. But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of primeval chaos, it must have meant, "_Do ye let light be there._" What else could it mean? There may frequently be difficulty in determining what or who is addressed by the imperative _let_, but there seems to be more in affirming that it has no subject. Nutting, puzzled with this word, makes the following dubious and unsatisfactory suggestion: "Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to _may_; or it may be termed itself an _imperative mode impersonal_; that is, containing 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 nominative, either expressed or implied," are again carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology "in its Elements and Forms,"--called, rather extravagantly, an "English 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 most strangely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: "_Need_ and _dare_ are sometimes used in _a general 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 form_ with a singular _noun_: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you.'"--_Rev. H. W. Bailey's E. Gram._, 1854, p. 128. The last example--"_He dare_"--is bad English: _dare_ should be _dares_. "He _need_ not _fear_," if admitted to be right, 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 many other grammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he. See _Bicknell's Gram._, Part i, p. 123; _Ingersoll's_, 153; _Guy's_, 91; _Alger'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 "_nominative sentences_;" three fourths of which are nothing but _phrases_ that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. 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 "something 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 nominative; [as,] '_Our_ IDEAS _of eternity_ CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'--LOCKE. 'A _wise_ SON MAKETH a glad 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 summer_ is a wise son.' Take away the description, '_that gathereth 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 _nominative sentences_."--_Improved Gram._, p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"--_Ib._, p. 94; _Philos. Gram._, 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle 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 _nominative case_ to the verb '_are_.' _Are_ is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and _agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence_, as its nominative case."--_Introduction to English Parsing_, 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, must be _singular_, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!

[389] "No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."--_Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar_, p. 162. "A _personal_ pronoun becomes a nominative, though 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 former, and accordingly treats _who, which, 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, _who, which_, 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 grammar, should themselves be grammarians."--_Ib._, p. 330. Here he declares _as_ to be no pronoun, but "a modifying connective," i.e., 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 nominative!

[390] Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: "_Your master, I, commands you_ (not _command_)."--_Ib._ But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, _may be changed in person_, by being 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 must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: "_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 number. "_One_" and "_other_" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to 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 affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard 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. _Hume's Hist._ A great _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 themselves and the world."--_English Gram. with Notes_, p. 189. The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be _bad English_, 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_" cannot possibly be taken "as _the subject_ of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, substituting for the former, "His meat _was_ locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, "The wages of sin _is_ death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be _good English_. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being "a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th;" [that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]-- _Churchill's New Gram._, p. 313.

[393] "If the excellence of Dryden's works was _lessened_ by his indigence, their number was increased."--_Dr. Johnson_. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an _if_, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative _too often_, has the following note upon it: "If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written _were_--'If the excellence of Dryden's works _were_ lessened'--Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote _correct English, instead of grammar_."-- _Philosophical Gram._, p. 238. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.

[394] Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the _solecisms_ adopted by himself and others, about "_unity of idea_" and "_plurality of idea_," in stead of condemning the _things intended to be spoken of_, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 738, under the head of _Absurdities_.

[395] In his _English Reader_, (Part II, Chap. 5th, Sec. 7th,) Murray has this line in its proper form, as it here stands in the words of Thomson; but, in his _Grammar_, he corrupted it, first in his _Exercises_, and then still more in his _Key_. Among his examples of "_False Syntax_" it stands thus:

"What black despair, what horror, _fills_ his _mind_!"
--_Exercises_, Rule 2.

So the error is propagated in the name of _Learning_, and this verse goes from grammar to grammar, as one that must have a "_plural_" verb. See _Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 242; _Smith's New Gram._, p. 127; _Fisk's Gram._, p. 120; _Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 189; Imp. Ed., p. 196.

[396] S. W. Clark, by reckoning "_as_" a "_preposition_," perverts the construction of sentences like this, and inserts a wrong case after the conjunction. See _Clark's Practical Grammar_, pp. 92 and 178; also _this Syntax_, Obs. 6 and Obs. 18, on Conjunctions.

[397] Murray gives us the following text for false grammar, under the head of _Strength_: "And Elias with Moses appeared to them."--_Exercises_, 8vo, p. 135. This he corrects thus: "And _there appeared to them_ Elias with Moses."--_Key_, 8vo, p. 266. He omits the comma after _Elias_, which some copies of the Bible contain, and others do not. Whether he supposed the verb _appeared_ to be singular or plural, I cannot tell; and he did not extend his quotation to the pronoun _they_, which immediately follows, and in which alone the incongruity lies.

[398] This order of the persons, is _not universally_ maintained in those languages. The words of Mary to her son, "Thy _father and I_ have sought thee sorrowing," seem very properly to give the precedence to her husband; and this is their arrangement in St. Luke's Greek, and in the Latin versions, as well as in others.

[399] The hackneyed example, "_I and Cicero are well,"--"Ego et Cicero valemus_"--which makes such a figure in the grammars, both Latin and English, and yet is ascribed to Cicero himself, deserves a word of explanation. Cicero the orator, having with him his young son Marcus Cicero at Athens, while his beloved daughter Tullia was with her mother in Italy, thus wrote to his wife, Terentia: "_Si tu, et Tullia, lux nostra, valetix; ego, et suavissimus Cicero, valemus_."--EPIST. AD FAM. Lib. xiv, Ep. v. That is, "If thou, and Tullia, our joy, are well; I, and the sweet lad Cicero, are likewise well." This literal translation is good English, and not to be amended by inversion; for a father is not expected to give precedence to his child. But, when I was a boy, the text and version of Dr. Adam puzzled me not a little; because I could not conceive how _Cicero_ could ever have said, "_I and Cicero are well_." The garbled citation is now much oftener read than the original. See it in _Crombie's Treatise_, p. 243; _McCulloch's Gram._, p. 158; and others.

[400] Two singulars connected by _and_, when they form a part of such a disjunction, are still equivalent to a plural; and are to be treated as such, in the syntax of the verb. Hence the following construction appears to be inaccurate: "A single consonant or _a mute and a liquid_ before an accented vowel, _is_ joined to that vowel"--_Dr. Bullions, Lat. Gram._ p. xi.

[401] Murray the schoolmaster has it, "_used_ to govern."--_English Gram._, p. 64. He puts the verb in a _wrong tense_. Dr. Bullions has it, "_usually governs_."--_Lat. Gram._, p. 202. This is right.--G. B.

[402] The two verbs _to sit_ and _to set_ are in general quite different in their meaning; but the passive verb _to be set_ sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter. Hence, we not only find the Latin word _sedeo, to sit_, used in the sense of _being set_, as, "Ingens coena _sedet_," "A huge supper _is set_," _Juv._, 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used _is set, was set, &c._, with reference to the personal posture of _sitting_. This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. "_Set_," says the Doctor, "can be no part of the verb _to sit_. If it belong to the verb _to set_, the translation in these passages is wrong. For _to set_, signifies _to place_, but without any designation of the _posture_ of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance, expressed by the original."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 53; _Churchill's_, 265. These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them--except that they prefer _sitten_ to _sat_, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete. If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate. In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, "_am set_," and by Beza, "_sedeo_;" though Montanus and the Vulgate render it literally by "_sedi_," as I do by _sat_. See _Key to False Syntax_, Rule XVII, Note xii.

[403] Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek: to], _the_, and the English or Saxon verb _do_, to be equivalent or kindred words. But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally. The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify _do_, with [Greek: to], _the_, has discovered synonymes [sic--KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers: as, "_It_ and _the_," says he, "when Gender is not attended to, are _synonymous_. Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to _bring forth_, or to _add_ to what we already see. _The, it, and, add, at, to_, and _do_, are _kindred words_. They mark that an _addition_ is made to some collected mass of existence. _To_, which literally signifies _add_, (like _at_ and the Latin _ad_,) is merely a different pronunciation of _do_. It expresses the _junction_ of an other thing, or circumstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of _too_."--_Introd. to Analyt. Dict._, p. 45. Horne Tooke, it seems, could not persuade this author into his notion of the derivation and meaning of _the, it, to_, or _do_. But Lindley Murray, and his followers, have been more tractable. They were ready to be led without looking. "To," say they, "comes from _Saxon and Gothic_ words, which signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 183; _Fisk's_, 92. What an admirable explanation is this! and how prettily the great Compiler says on the next leaf: "Etymology, when it is guided by _judgment_, and [when] _proper limits_ are set to it, certainly merits great attention!"--_Ib._, p. 135. According to his own express rules for interpreting "a substantive _without any article to limit it_" and the "relative pronoun _with a comma before it_," he must have meant, that "_to_ comes from Saxon and Gothic words" _of every sort_, and that _the words of these two languages_ "signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c." The latter assertion is true enough: but, concerning the former, a man of sense may demur. Nor do I see how it is possible not to despise _such_ etymology, be the interpretation of the words what it may. For, if _to_ means _action_ or _to act_, then our little infinitive phrase, _to be_, must mean, _action be_, or _to act be_; and what is this, but nonsense?

[404] So, from the following language of three modern authors, one cannot but infer, that they would parse the verb _as governed by the preposition_; but I do not perceive that they anywhere expressly say so:

(1.) "The Infinitive is the form of the supplemental verb that always has, or admits, the _preposition_ TO before it; as, to _move_. Its general character is to represent the action in _prospect_, or _to do_; or in _retrospect_, as _to have done_. As a verb, it signifies _to do_ the action; and as _object of the preposition_ TO, it stands in the place of a noun for _the doing_ of it. The infinitive verb and its prefix _to_ are used much like a preposition and its noun object."--_Felch's Comprehensive Gram._, p. 62.

(2.) "The action or other signification of a verb may be expressed in its widest and most general sense, without any limitation by a person or agent, but _merely as the end or purpose_ of some other action, state of being, quality, or thing; it is, from this want of limitation, said to be in the _Infinitive mode_; and is expressed by the verb with the _preposition_ TO before it, to denote _this relation of end or purpose_; as, 'He came _to see_ me;' 'The man is not fit _die_;' 'It was not right for him _to do_ thus.'"--_Dr. S. Webber's English Gram._, p. 35.

(3.) "RULE 3. A verb in the Infinitive Mode, is _the object_ of the preposition TO, expressed or understood."--_S. W. Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 127.

[405] Rufus Nutting, A. M., a grammarian of some skill, supposes that in all such sentences there was "_anciently_" an ellipsis, not of the phrase "_in order to_," but of the preposition _for_. He says, "Considering this mode as merely a _verbal noun_, it might be observed, that the infinitive, when it expresses the _object_, is governed by a _transitive_ verb; and, when it expresses the _final cause_, is governed by an _intransitive_ verb, OR ANCIENTLY, BY A PREPOSITION UNDERSTOOD. Of the former kind--'he learns _to read_.' Of the latter--'he reads _to learn_,' i. e. '_for_ to learn.'"--_Practical Gram._, p. 101. If _for_ was anciently understood in examples of this sort, it is understood now, and to a still greater extent; because we do not now insert the word _for_, as our ancestors sometimes did; and an ellipsis can no otherwise grow obsolete, than by a continual use of what was once occasionally omitted.

[406] (1.) "La préposition, est un mot indéclinable, placé devant les noms, les pronoms, et les _verbes_, qu'elle _régit_."--"The preposition is an indeclinable word placed before the nouns, pronouns, and _verbs_ which it _governs_."--_Perrin's Grammar_, p. 152.

(2.) "Every verb placed immediately after _an other verb_, or after _a preposition_, ought to be put in the _infinitive_; because it is then _the regimen_ of the verb or preposition which precedes."--See _La Grammaire des Grammaires, par Girault Du Vivier_, p. 774.

(3.) The American translator of the Elements of General Grammar, by the Baron De Sacy, is naturally led, in giving a version of his author's method of analysis, to parse the English infinitive mood essentially as I do; calling the word _to_ a preposition, and the exponent, or sign, of a _relation_ between the verb which follows it, and some other word which is antecedent to it. Thus, in the phrase, "_commanding_ them _to use_ his power," he says, that "'_to_' [is the] Exponent of a relation whose Antecedent is '_commanding_,' and [whose] Consequent [is] '_use_.'"--_Fosdick's De Sacy_, p. 131. In short, he expounds the word _to_ in this relation, just as he does when it stands before the objective case. For example, in the phrase, "_belonging to him alone: 'to_,' Exponent of a relation of which the Antecedent is '_belonging_,' and the Consequent, '_him alone.'"--Ib._, p. 126. My solution, in either case, differs from this in scarcely any thing else than the _choice of words_ to express it.

(4.) It appears that, in sundry dialects of the north of Europe, the preposition _at_ has been preferred for the governing of the infinitive: "The use of _at_ for _to_, as the sign of the infinitive mode, is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day."--_Fowler, on the English Language_, 8vo, 1850, p. 46.

[407] Here is a literal version, in which two infinitives are governed by the preposition _between_; and though such a construction is uncommon, I know not why it should be thought less accurate in the one language than in the other. In some exceptive phrases, also, it seems not improper to put the infinitive after some other preposition than _to_; as, "What can she do _besides sing_?"--"What has she done, _except rock_ herself?" But such expressions, if allowable, are too unfrequent to be noticed in any general Rule of syntax. In the following example, the word _of_ pretty evidently governs the infinitive: "Intemperance characterizes our discussions, that is calculated to embitter in stead _of conciliate_."--CINCINNATI HERALD: _Liberator_, No. 986.

[408] This doctrine has been lately revived in English by William B. Fowle, who quotes Dr. Rees, Beauzée, Harris, Tracy, and Crombie, as his authorities for it. He is right in supposing the English infinitive to be generally governed by the preposition _to_, but wrong in calling it a _noun_, or "the _name_ of the verb," except this phrase be used in the sense in which every verb may be the name of itself. It is an error too, to suppose with Beauzée, "that the infinitive never in any language _refers to a subject_ or nominative;" or, as Harris has it, that infinitives "_have no reference at all to persons or substances_." See _Fowle's True English Gram._, Part ii, pp. 74 and 75. For though the infinitive verb never _agrees_ with a subject or nominative, like a finite verb, it most commonly has a very obvious _reference_ to something which is _the subject_ of the being, action, or passion, which it expresses; and this reference is one of the chief points of difference between the infinitive and a noun. S. S. Greene, in a recent grammar, absurdly parses infinitives "_as nouns_," and by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them _verbs_. Thus: "_Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained_, is a _regular passive_ VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is _used as a_ NOUN _in the relation of predicate_; according to Rule II. A _noun or pronoun_ used with the copula to form the _predicate_, must be in the _nominative_ case."--_Greene's Gram._, 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This author admits, "The '_to_' seems, like the preposition, to perform the office of a _connective_:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The infinitive _differs from the preposition and its object_, in that the '_to_' is _the only preposition_ used with the verb." And so he concludes, "The _two_ [or more] _parts_ of the infinitive are taken together, and, _thus_ combined, may _become a_ NOUN _in any relation_."--_Ib._, 1st Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb before it _transitive_; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the _direct object of a transitive verb_ is the _infinitive_; as, 'We intend (What?) _to leave_ [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) _to conceal_ their fears.'"--_Ib._, p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents: "_It is our purpose to leave_ town to-day."--"They _endeavoured to conceal_ their fears." Or in this:--"They _blustered_ to conceal their fears."

[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus: "Tò, _or_ To, _ad_. A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed _a syllable of the verb_. It is used _merely as a sign of the infinitive_, without having any distinct or separate meaning: as, 'He loves _to_ read.'"--_Univ. and Crit. Dict._ Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by "_read_" is "that _towards_ which" the affection signified by "_loves_" is directed? It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this _to_, that its meaning is not readily seen. For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or analogy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a _part_ of the verb."

[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at _variance_, so there seems to be none on which they are more at _fault_, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, _to_. For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be classed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine. Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.

(1.) "What is the meaning of the word _to?_ Ans. _To_ means _act_. NOTE.--As our verbs and nouns _are spelled in the same manner_, it was formerly _thought best_ to prefix the _word_ TO, to words _when used as verbs_. For there is no difference between the NOUN, _love_; and the VERB, _to love_; but what is shown by the _prefix_ TO, which signifies _act_; i. e. to _act_ love."--_R. W. Greene's Inductive Exercises in English Grammar_, N. Y., 1829, p. 52. Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. _To_ no more "means _act_," than _from_ "means _act_." And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, "_act love_," is imperative, and makes the word "_love_" a _noun_; and so, "_to act love_," (where "_love_" is also a noun,) must mean "_act act love_," which is tautological nonsense. Our nouns and verbs are not, _in general_, spelled alike; nor are the latter, _in general_, preceded by _to_; nor could a particle which may govern _either_, have been _specifically intended_, at first, to mark their difference. By some, as we have seen, it is argued from the very sign, that the infinitive is always essentially a noun.

(2.) "The _infinitive mode_ is the _root_ or _simple form_ of the verb, used to express an action or state _indefinitely_; as, _to hear, to speak_. It is generally distinguished by the sign _to_. When the particle _to_ is employed in _forming_ the infinitive, it is to be regarded as _a part of the verb_. In _every other case_ it is a _preposition_."--_Wells's School Grammar_, 1st Ed., p. 80. "A _Preposition_ is a word which is used to express the relation of a _noun_ or _pronoun_ depending upon it, to some other word in the sentence."--_Ib._, pp. 46 and 108. "The passive form of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a _preposition_, forming a _compound passive verb_. Examples:--'He _was listened to_ without a murmur.'--A. H. EVERETT. 'Nor is this enterprise _to be scoffed at_.'--CHANNING."--_Ib._, p. 146. "A verb in the infinitive _usually relates_ to some noun or pronoun. Thus, in the sentence, 'He desires to improve,' the verb _to improve_ relates to the pronoun _he_ while it is governed by _desires_."--_Ib._, p. 150. "'The _agent_ to a verb in the infinitive mode must be in the _objective_ case.'--NUTTING."--_Ib._, p. 148. These citations from Wells, the last of which he quotes approvingly, by way of authority, are in many respects self-contradictory, and in nearly all respects untrue. How can the infinitive be only "the _root_ or _simple form_ of the verb," and yet consist "generally" of two distinct words, and often of three, four, or five; as, "_to hear_,"--"_to have heard_,"--"_to be listened to_,"--"_to have been listened to_?" How can _to_ be a "_preposition_" in the phrase, "_He was listened to_," and not so at all in "_to be listened to_?" How does the infinitive "express an action or state _indefinitely_," if it "_usually relates to some noun or pronoun_?" Why _must_ its _agent_ "be in the _objective_ case," if "_to improve_ relates to the pronoun _he_?" Is _to "in every other case a preposition_," and not such before a verb or a participle? Must every preposition govern some "_noun or pronoun_?" And yet are there some prepositions which govern nothing, precede nothing? "The door banged _to_ behind him."--BLACKWELL: _Prose Edda_, §2. What is _to_ here?