Chapter VII: Participles (1)

The true or regular syntax of the English Participle, as a part of speech distinct from the verb, and not converted into a noun or an adjective, is twofold; being sometimes that of simple _relation_ to a noun or a pronoun that precedes it, and sometimes that of _government_, or the state of _being governed_ by a preposition. In the former construction, the participle resembles an adjective; in the latter, it is more like a noun, or like the infinitive mood: for the participle after a preposition is governed _as a participle_, and not as a case.[417] To these two constructions, some add three others less regular, using the participle sometimes as the _subject_ of a finite verb, sometimes as the _object_ of a transitive verb, and sometimes as a _nominative_ after a neuter verb. Of these five constructions, the first two, are the legitimate uses of this part of speech; the others are occasional, modern, and of doubtful propriety.

RULE XX.--PARTICIPLES.

Participles relate to nouns or pronouns, or else are governed by prepositions: as, "Elizabeth's tutor, at one time _paying_ her a visit, found her _employed_ in _reading_ Plato."--_Hume_. "I have no more pleasure in _hearing_ a man _attempting_ wit and _failing_, than in _seeing_ a man _trying_ to leap over a ditch and tumbling into it."--_Dr. Johnson_.

"Now, _rais'd_ on Tyre's sad ruins, Pharaoh's pride
Soar'd high, his legions _threat'ning_ far and wide."--_Dryden_.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

A participle sometimes relates to a preceding _phrase_ or _sentence_, of which it forms no part; as, "I then quit the society; _to withdraw and leave them to themselves_, APPEARING to me a duty."--"It is almost exclusively on the ground we have mentioned, that we have heard _his being continued in office_ DEFENDED."--_Professors' Reasons_, p. 23. (Better, "_his continuance_ in office," or, "_the continuing of him_ in office." See Obs. 18th on Rule 4th.)

"But _ever to do ill_ our sole delight,
As _being_ the contrary to his high will."--_Milton_.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

With an infinitive denoting being or action in the abstract, a participle is sometimes also taken _abstractly_; (that is, without reference to any particular noun, pronoun, or other subject;) as, "To seem _compelled_, is disagreeable."--"To keep always _praying_ aloud, is plainly impossible."--"It must be disagreeable to be left pausing[418] on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 323.

"To praise him is to serve him, and fulfill,
_Doing_ and _suffering_, his unquestion'd will."
--_Cowper_, Vol. i, p. 88.

EXCEPTION THIRD.

The participle is often used irregularly in English, as a substitute for the infinitive mood, to which it is sometimes equivalent without irregularity; as, "I saw him _enter_, or _entering_"--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 230. "He is afraid of _trying_, or _to try_."--_Ibid._ Examples irregular: "Sir, said I, if the case stands thus, 'tis dangerous _drinking_:" i.e., to drink.--_Collier's Tablet of Cebes_. "It will be but ill _venturing_ thy soul upon that:" i.e., to venture.--_Bunyan's Law and Grace_, p. 27. "_Describing_ a past event as present, has a fine effect in language:" i.e., to describe.--_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 93. "In English likewise it deserves _remarking_:" i.e., to be remarked.--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 232. "Bishop Atterbury deserves _being particularly mentioned_:" i.e., to be particularly mentioned.--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 291. "This, however, is in effect no more than _enjoying_ the sweet that predominates:" i.e., to enjoy.--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 43.

"Habits are soon assum'd; but when we strive
To strip them off, 'tis being _flay'd_ alive."--_Cowper_, Vol. i, p. 44

EXCEPTION FOURTH.

An other frequent irregularity in the construction of participles, is the practice of treating them essentially as nouns, without taking from them the regimen and adjuncts of participles; as, "_Your having been well educated will be_ a great recommendation."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 171. (Better: "_Your excellent education_"--or, "_That you have been well educated_, will be," &c.) "It arises from _sublimity's expressing grandeur_ in its highest degree."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 29. "Concerning _the separating_ by a circumstance, _words_ intimately connected."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. ii, p. 104. "As long as there is any hope of _their keeping pace_ with them."--_Literary Convention_, p. 114. "Which could only arise from _his knowing the secrets_ of all hearts."--_West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p. 180. "But this again is _talking_ quite at random."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 146.

"_My being here_ it is, that holds thee hence."--_Shak._

"Such, but by foils, the clearest lustre see,
And deem _aspersing others, praising thee_."--_Savage, to Walpole_.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XX.

OBS. 1.--To this rule, I incline to think, there are _properly_ no other exceptions than the first two above; or, at least, that we ought to avoid, when we can, any additional anomalies. Yet, not to condemn with unbecoming positiveness what others receive for good English, I have subjoined two items more, which include certain other irregularities now very common, that, when examples of a like form occur, the reader may _parse them as exceptions_, if he does not choose _to censure them as errors_. The mixed construction in which participles are made to govern the possessive case, has already been largely considered in the observations on Rule 4th. Murray, Allen, Churchill, and many other grammarians, great and small, admit that participles may be made the subjects or the objects of verbs, while they retain the nature, government, and adjuncts, of participles; as, "Not _attending_ to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p. 200; _Comly's Gram._, 188; _Weld's Gram._, 2d Ed., 170. "_Polite_ is employed to signify their being _highly civilized_.'"--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 219. "One abhors _being_ in debt."--_Ib._, p. 98; _Jamieson's Rhet._, 71; _Murray's Gram._, 144. "Who affected _being_ a fine gentleman so unmercifully."--_Spect._, No. 496. "The minister's _being attached_ to the project, prolonged their debate."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 78. "It finds [i.e., _the mind_ finds,] that _acting thus_ would gratify one passion; _not acting_, or _acting otherwise_, would gratify another."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 109. "But further, _cavilling_ and _objecting_ upon any subject _is_ much easier than _clearing up_ difficulties."--_Bp. Butler's Charge to the Clergy of Durham_, 1751.

OBS. 2.--W. Allen observes, "The use of the participle as a nominative, is one of the _peculiarities_ of our language."--_Elements of Gram._, p. 171. He might have added, that the use of the participle as an objective governed by a verb, as a nominative after a verb neuter, or as a word governing the possessive, is also one of the peculiarities of our language, or at least an idiom adopted by no few of its recent writers. But whether any one of these four modern departures from General Grammar ought to be countenanced by us, as an idiom that is either elegant or advantageous, I very much doubt. They are all however sufficiently common in the style of reputable authors; and, however questionable their character, some of our grammarians seem mightily attached to them all. It becomes me therefore to object with submission. These mixed and irregular constructions of the participle, ought, in my opinion, to be _generally_ condemned as false syntax; and for this simple reason, that the ideas conveyed by them may _generally_, if not always, be expressed more briefly, and more elegantly, by other phraseology that is in no respect anomalous. Thus, for the examples above: "_Inattention_ to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."--"_Polite_ is employed to signify a _high degree of civilization_;" or, "_that they are_ highly civilized."--"One abhors _debt_."--"Who affected _the_ fine gentleman so unmercifully."--"The minister's _partiality_ to the project, prolonged their debate."--"It finds [i.e., _the mind_ finds,] that _to act thus_, would gratify one passion; _and that not to act_, or _to act otherwise_, would gratify another."--"But further, _to cavil and object_, upon any subject, is much easier than _to clear up_ difficulties." Are not these expressions much better English than the foregoing quotations? And if so, have we not reason to conclude that the adoption of participles in such instances is erroneous and ungrammatical?

OBS. 3.--In Obs. 17th on Rule 4th, it was suggested, that in English the participle, without governing the possessive case, is turned to a greater number and variety of uses, than in any other language. This remark applies mainly to the participle in _ing_. Whether it is expedient to make so much of one sort of derivative, and endeavour to justify every possible use of it which can be plausibly defended, is a question well worthy of consideration. We have already converted this participle to such a multiplicity of purposes, and into so many different parts of speech, that one can well-nigh write a chapter in it, without any other words. This practice may have added something to the copiousness and flexibility of the language, but it certainly has a tendency to impair its strength and clearness. Not every use of participles is good, for which there may be found precedents in good authors. One may run to great excess in the adoption of such derivatives, without becoming absolutely unintelligible, and without violating any rule of our common grammars. For example, I may say of somebody, "This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate." Now, in what other language than ours, can a string of words anything like the following, come so near to a fair and literal translation of this long sentence? "This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating." Here are _not all_ the uses to which our writers apply the participle in _ing_, but there would seem to be enough, without adding others that are less proper.

OBS. 4.--The active participles, _admitting, allowing, considering, granting, speaking, supposing_, and the like, are frequently used in discourse so independently, that they either relate to nothing, or to the pronoun _I_ or _we_ understood; as, "_Granting_ this to be true, what is to be inferred from it?"--_Murray's Gram._, p. 195. This may be supposed to mean, "_I_, granting this to be true, _ask_ what is to be inferred from it?" "The very chin was, _modestly speaking_, as long as my whole face."--_Addison_. Here the meaning may be, "_I_, modestly speaking, _say_." So of the following examples: "_Properly speaking_, there is no such thing as chance."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 172. "Because, _generally speaking_, the figurative sense of a word is derived from its proper sense."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 190. "But, _admitting_ that two or three of these offend less in their morals than in their writings, must poverty make nonsense sacred?"--_Pope's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 7. Some grammarians suppose such participles to be put absolute in themselves, so as to have no reference to any noun or pronoun; others, among whom are L. Murray and Dr. James P. Wilson, suppose them to be put absolute with a pronoun understood. On the former supposition, they form an other exception to the foregoing rule; on the latter, they do not: the participle relates to the pronoun, though both be independent of the rest of the sentence. If we supply the ellipsis as above, there is nothing put absolute.

OBS. 5.--Participles are almost always placed after the words on which their construction depends, and are distinguished from adjectives by this position; but when other words depend on the participle, or when several participles have the same construction, the whole phrase may come before the noun or pronoun: as, "_Leaning_ my head upon my hand, _I_ began to figure to myself the miseries of confinement."--_Sterne_.

"_Immured_ in cypress shades, a _sorcerer_ dwells."--_Milton_.

"_Brib'd, bought, and bound_, they banish shame and fear;
Tell you they're stanch, and have a soul sincere."--_Crabbe_.

OBS. 6.--When participles are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb, they become _adjectives_; and, as such, they cannot govern an object after them. The following construction is therefore inaccurate: "When Caius did any thing _unbecoming_ his dignity."--_Jones's Church History_, i, 87. "Costly and gaudy attire, _unbecoming_ godliness."--_Extracts_, p. 185. Such errors are to be corrected by Note 15th to Rule 9th, or by changing the particle _un_ to _not_: as, "Unbecoming _to_ his dignity;" or, "_Not_ becoming his dignity."

OBS. 7.--An imperfect or a preperfect participle, preceded by an article, an adjective, or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, becomes a _verbal_ or _participial noun_; and, as such, it cannot with strict propriety, govern an object after it. A word which may be the object of the participle in its proper construction, requires the preposition _of_, to connect it with the verbal noun; as, 1. THE PARTICIPLE: "_Worshiping_ idols, the Jews sinned."--"_Thus worshiping_ idols,--_In worshiping_ idols,--or, _By worshiping_ idols, they sinned." 2. THE VERBAL NOUN: "_The worshiping of_ idols,--_Such worshiping of_ idols,--or, _Their worshiping of_ idols, was sinful."--"_In the worshiping of_ idols, there is sin."

OBS. 8.--It is commonly supposed that these two modes of expression are, in very many instances, equivalent to each other in meaning, and consequently interchangeable. How far they really are so, is a question to be considered. Example: "But if candour be _a confounding of_ the distinctions between sin and holiness, _a depreciating of_ the excellence of the latter, and at the same time _a diminishing of_ the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."--_The Friend_, iv, 108. Here the nouns, _distinctions, excellence_, and _evil_, though governed by _of_, represent the _objects_ of the forenamed actions; and therefore they might well be governed by _confounding, depreciating_, and _diminishing_, if these were participles. But if, to make them such, we remove the article and the preposition, the construction forsakes our meaning; for _be confounding, (be) depreciating_, and _(be) diminishing_, seem rather to be verbs of the compound form; and our uncertain nominatives after _be_, thus disappear in the shadow of a false sense. But some sensible critics tell us, that this preposition _of_ should refer rather to the _agent_ of the preceding action, than to its _passive object_; so that such a phrase as, "_the teaching of boys_," should signify rather the instruction which boys give, than that which they receive. If, for the sake of this principle, or for any other reason, we wish to avoid the foregoing phraseology, the meaning may be expressed thus: "But if _your_ candour _confound_ the distinctions between sin and holiness; _if it depreciate_ the excellence of the latter, and at the same time _diminish_ the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."

OBS. 9.--When the use of the preposition produces ambiguity or harshness, let a better expression be sought. Thus the sentence, "He mentions _Newton's writing of_ a commentary," is not entirely free from either of these faults. If the preposition be omitted, the word _writing_ will have a double construction, which is inadmissible, or at least objectionable. Some would say, "He mentions _Newton writing_ a commentary." This, though not uncommon, is still more objectionable because it makes the leading word in sense the adjunct in construction. The meaning may be correctly expressed thus: "He mentions _that Newton wrote_ a commentary." "Mr. Dryden makes a very handsome observation on _Ovid's writing a letter_ from Dido to Æneas."--_Spect._, No. 62; _Campbell's Rhet._, p. 265; _Murray's Key_, ii, 253. Here the word _writing_ is partly a noun and partly a participle. If we make it wholly a noun, by saying, "on _Ovid's writing of_ a letter," or wholly a participle, by saying, "on _Ovid writing_ a letter;" it may be doubted, whether we have effected any improvement. And again, if we adopt Dr. Lowth's advice, "Let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction;" we must make some change; and therefore ought perhaps to say; "on _Ovid's conceit of writing_ a letter from Dido to Æneas." This is apparently what Addison meant, and what Dryden remarked upon; the latter did not speak of the letter itself, else the former would have said, "on _Ovid's letter_ from Dido to Æneas."

OBS. 10.--When a needless possessive, or a needless article, is put before the participle, the correction is to be made, not by inserting _of_, but by expunging the article, according to Note 16th to Rule 1st, or the possessive, according to Note 5th to Rule 4th. Example: "By _his_ studying the Scriptures he became wise."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 91. Here _his_ serves only to render the sentence incorrect; yet this spurious example is presented by Lennie to _prove_ that a participle may take the possessive case before it, when the preposition _of_ is not admissible after it. So, in stead of expunging one useless word, our grammarians _often_ add an other and call the twofold error a _correction_; as, "For _his_ avoiding _of_ that precipice, he is indebted to his friend's care."--_Murray's Key_, ii, 201. Or worse yet: "_It was from our_ misunderstanding _of_ the directions _that_ we lost our way."--_Ibid._ Here, not _our_ and _of_ only, but four other words, are worse than useless. Again: "By _the_ exercising _of_ our judgment, it is improved. Or thus: By _exercising_ our judgment, it is improved."--_Comly's Key in his Gram._, 12th Ed., p. 188. Each of these pretended corrections is wrong in more respects than one. Say, "By exercising our _judgement, we improve it_" Or, "Our _judgement_ is improved by _being exercised_" Again: "_The loving of_ our enemies is a divine _command_; Or, _loving our enemies_ [is a divine command]."--_Ibid._ Both of these are also wrong. Say, "'_Love your enemies_,' is a divine command." Or, "_We are divinely commanded to love_ our enemies." Some are apt to jumble together the active voice and the passive, and thus destroy the unity even of a short sentence; as, "By _exercising_ our memories, they _are improved_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 226 and 195. "The error _might have been avoided_ by _repeating_ the substantive."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 172. "By _admitting_ such violations of established grammatical distinctions, confusion _would be introduced_."--_Ib._, p. 187. In these instances, we have an active participle without an agent; and this, by the preposition _by_, is made an adjunct to a passive verb. Even the participial noun of this form, though it actually drops the distinction of voice, is awkward and apparently incongruous in such a relation.

OBS. 11.--When the verbal noun necessarily retains any adjunct of the verb or participle, it seems proper that the two words be made a compound by means of the hyphen: as, "Their hope shall be as the _giving-up_ of the ghost."--_Job_, xi, 20. "For if the _casting-away_ of them be the reconciling of the world."--_Rom._, xi, 15. "And the _gathering-together_ of the waters called he seas."--_Gen._, i, 10. "If he should offer to stop the _runnings-out_ of his justice."--_Law and Grace_, p. 26. "The _stopping-short_ before the usual pause in the melody, aids the impression that is made by the description of the stone's _stopping-short_.'"--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 106. I do not find these words united in the places referred to, but this is nevertheless their true figure. Our authors and printers are lamentably careless, as well as ignorant, respecting _the figure of words_: for which part of grammar, see the whole of the third chapter, in Part First of this work; also observations on the fourth rule of syntax, from the 30th to the 35th. As certain other compounds may sometimes be broken by _tmesis_, so may some of these; as, "Not forsaking the _assembling_ of ourselves _together_, as the manner of some is."--_Heb._, x, 23. Adverbs may relate to participles, but nouns require adjectives. The following phrase is therefore inaccurate: "For the more _easily_ reading of large numbers." Yet if we say, "For reading large numbers _the more easily_," the construction is different, and not inaccurate. Some calculator, I think, has it, "For the more _easily_ reading large numbers." But Hutton says, "For the more _easy_ reading _of_ large numbers."--_Hutton's Arith._, p. 5; so _Babcock's_, p. 12. It would be quite as well to say, "For the _greater ease in_ reading large numbers."

OBS. 12.--Many words of a participial form are used directly as nouns, without any article, adjective, or possessive case before them, and without any object or adjunct after them. Such is commonly the construction of the words _spelling, reading, writing, ciphering, surveying, drawing, parsing_, and many other such _names_ of actions or exercises. They are rightly put by Johnson among "_nouns_ derived from _verbs_;" for, "The [name of the] action is the same with the participle present, as _loving, frighting, fighting, striking_."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p. 10. Thus: "I like _writing_."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 171. "He supposed, with them, that _affirming_ and _denying_ were operations of the mind."--_Tooke's Diversions_, i, 35. "'Not rendering,' said Polycarp the disciple of John, 'evil for evil, or _railing_ for _railing_, or _striking_ for _striking_, or _cursing_ for _cursing_."--_Dymond, on War_. Against this practice, there is seldom any objection; the words are wholly nouns, both in sense and construction. We call them _participial_ nouns, only because they resemble participles in their derivation; or if we call them _verbal_ nouns, it is because they are derived from verbs. But we too frequently find those which retain the government and the adjuncts of participles, used as nouns before or after verbs; or, more properly speaking, used as mongrels and nondescripts, a doubtful species, for which there is seldom any necessity, since the infinitive, the verbal or some other noun, or a clause introduced by the conjunction _that_, will generally express the idea in a better manner: as, "_Exciting_ such disturbances, is unlawful." Say rather, "_To excite_ such disturbances,--_The exciting of_ such disturbances,--_The excitation of_ such disturbances,--or, _That one should excite_ such disturbances, is unlawful."

OBS. 13.--Murray says, "The word _the_, before the _active participle_, in the following sentence, and in all others of a similar construction, is improper, and should be omitted: '_The_ advising, or _the_ attempting, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful.' It should be, '_Advising_ or _attempting_ to excite disturbances.'"--_Octavo Gram._, p. 195. But, by his own showing, "the present participle, with the definite article _the_ before it, becomes a _substantive_."--_Ib._, p. 192. And substantives, or nouns, by an other of his notes, can govern the infinitive mood, just as well as participles; or just as well as the verbs which he thinks would be very proper here; namely, "To _advise_ or _attempt_ to excite such disturbances."--_Ib._, p. 196. It would be right to say, "_Any advice_, or _attempt_, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful." And I see not that he has improved the text at all, by expunging the article. _Advising_ and _attempting_, being disjunct nominatives to _is_, are nothing but nouns, whether the article be used or not; though they are rather less obviously such without it, and therefore the change is for the worse.

OBS. 14.--Lennie observes, "When _a preposition_"--(he should have said, When _an other_ preposition--) "follows the participle, _of_ is inadmissible; as, _His_ depending _on_ promises proved his ruin. _His_ neglecting _to_ study when young, rendered him ignorant all his life."--_Prin. of E. Gram._, 5th Ed., p. 65; 13th Ed., 91. Here _on_ and _to_, of course, exclude _of_; but the latter may be changed to _of_, which will turn the infinitive into a noun: as, "_His_ neglecting _of study_," &c. "_Depending_" and "_neglecting_," being equivalent to _dependence_ and _neglect_, are participial nouns, and not "participles." Professor Bullions, too, has the same faulty remark, examples and all; (for his book, of the same title, is little else than a gross plagiarism from Lennie's;) though he here forgets his other erroneous doctrines, that, "A _preposition_ should never be used before the infinitive," and that, "Active verbs do not admit a preposition after them." See _Bullions's Prin. of E. Gram._, pp. 91, 92, and 107.

OBS. 15.--The participle in _ing_ is, on many occasions, equivalent to the infinitive verb, so that the speaker or writer may adopt either, just as he pleases: as, "So their gerunds are sometimes found _having_ [or _to have_] an absolute or apparently neuter signification."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 234. "With tears that ceas'd not _flowing_" [or _to flow_].--_Milton_. "I would willingly have him _producing_ [_produce_, or _to produce_] his credentials."--_Barclay's Works_, iii, 273. There are also instances, and according to my notion not a few, in which the one is put _improperly_ for the other. The participle however is erroneously used for the infinitive much oftener than the infinitive for the participle. The lawful uses of both are exceedingly numerous; though the syntax of the participle, strictly speaking, does not include its various _conversions_ into other parts of speech. The principal instances of _regular_ equivalence between infinitives and participles, may be reduced to the following heads:

1. After the verbs _see, hear_, and _feel_, the participle in _ing_, relating to the objective, is often equivalent to the infinitive governed by the verb; as, "I saw him _running_"--"I heard it _howling_."--_W. Allen_. "I feel the wind _blowing_." Here the verbs, _run, howl_, and _blow_, might be substituted. 2. After intransitive verbs signifying _to begin_ or _to continue_, the participle in _ing_, relating to the nominative, may be used in stead of the infinitive connected to the verb; as, "The ass began _galloping_ with all his might."--_Sandford and Merton_. "It commenced _raining_ very hard."--_Silliman_. "The steamboats commenced _running_ on Saturday."--_Daily Advertiser_. "It is now above three years since he began _printing_."--_Dr. Adam's Pref. to Rom. Antiq._ "So when they continued _asking_ him."--_John_, viii, 7. Greek, "[Greek: Os epemenon erotontes auton.]" Latin, "Cum ergo perseverarent _interrogantes_ eum."--_Vulgate_. "Cùm autem perseverarent eum _interrogare_."--_Beza_. "Then shall ye continue _following_ the Lord your God."--_1 Sam._, xii, 14. "Eritis _sequentes_ Dominum Deum vestrum."--_Vulgate_. "As she continued _praying_ before the Lord."--_1 Sam._, i, 12. "Cùm ilia _multiplicaret preces_ coram Domino."--_Vulgate_. "And they went on _beating down_ one an other."--_2 Sam._, xiv, 16. "Make the members of them go on _rising_ and _growing_ in their importance."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 116. "Why do you keep _teasing_ me?"

3. After _for, in, of_, or _to_, and perhaps some other prepositions, the participle may in most cases be varied by the infinitive, which is governed by _to_ only; as, "We are better fitted _for receiving_ the tenets and _obeying_ the precepts of that faith which will make us wise unto salvation."--_West's Letters_, p. 51. That is--"_to receive_ the tenets and _obey_ the precepts." "Men fit _for fighting_, practised _in fighting_, proud _of fighting_, accustomed _to fighting_."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 172. That is, "fit _to fight_," &c. "What is the right path, few take the trouble _of inquiring_."--_Murray's Key_, 8vo. ii, 235. Better, perhaps:--"few take the trouble _to inquire_."

OBS. 16.--One of our best grammarians says, "The infinitive, in the following sentences, _should be exchanged_ for the participle: 'I am weary _to bear_ them.' Is. i, 14. 'Hast thou, spirit, perform'd _to point_ the tempest?' Shak."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 172. This suggestion implies, that the participle would be here not only equivalent to the infinitive in sense, but better in expression. It is true, the preposition _to_ does not well express the relation between _weary_ and _bear_; and, doubtless, some regard should be had to the meaning of this particle, whenever it is any thing more than an index of the mood. But the critic ought to have told us how he would make these corrections. For in neither case does the participle alone appear to be a fit substitute for the infinitive, either with or without the _to_; and the latter text will scarcely bear the participle at all, unless we change the former verb; as, "Hast thou, spirit, _done pointing_ the tempest?" The true meaning of the other example seems somewhat uncertain. The Vulgate has it, _"Laboravi sustinens_," "I have laboured _bearing_ them;" the French Bible, "_Je suis las de les souffrir_," "I am tired of _bearing_ them;" the Septuagint, "[Greek: Ouketi anæso tas hamartias humon,]" "I will no more forgive your sins."

OBS. 17.--In the following text, the infinitive is used improperly, nor would the participle in its stead make pure English: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, _to have been_ continually before me."--_Ps. 1. 8._ According to the French version, _"to have been"_ should be _"which are;"_ but the Septuagint and the Vulgate take the preceding noun for the nominative, thus: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, _but thy burnt-offerings are_ continually before me."

OBS. 18.--As the preposition _to_ before the infinitive shows the latter to be "_that towards which_ the preceding verb is directed," verbs of _desisting, omitting, preventing_, and _avoiding_, are generally found to take the participle after them, and not the infinitive; because, in such instances, the direction of effort seems not to be so properly _to_, or _towards_, as _from_ the action.[419] Where the preposition _from_ is inserted, (as it most commonly is, after some of these verbs.) there is no irregularity in the construction of the participle; but where the participle immediately follows the verb, it is perhaps questionable whether it ought to be considered the object of the verb, or a mere participle relating to the nominative which precedes. If we suppose the latter, the participle may be parsed by the common rule; if the former, it must be referred to the third exception above. For example:

1. After verbs of DESISTING; as, "The Cryer used to proclaim, DIXERUNT, i. e. They _have done speaking._"--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 132. "A friend is advised to _put off making_ love to Lalage."--_Philological Museum_, i, 446. "He _forbore doing_ so, on the ground of expediency."--_The Friend_, iv, 35. "And yet architects never _give over attempting_ to reconcile these two incompatibles."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 338. "Never to _give over seeking_ and _praying_ for it."--_N. Y. Observer._ "Do not _leave off seeking._"--_President Edwards._ "Then Satan _hath done flattering_ and _comforting._"--_Baxter._ "The princes _refrained talking._"--_Job_, xxix, 9. "Principes _cessabant loqui._"--_Vulgate._ Here it would be better to say, "The princes refrained _from_ talking." But Murray says, "_From_ seems to be superfluous after _forbear_: as, 'He could not forbear from appointing the pope,' &c."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 203. But _"forbear to appoint"_ would be a better correction; for this verb is often followed by the infinitive; as, _"Forbear to insinuate."_--_West's Letters_, p. 62. "And he _forbare to go_ forth."--_1 Sam._, xxiii, 13. The reader will observe, that, _"never to give over"_ or _"not to leave off,"_ is in fact the same thing as to continue; and I have shown by the analogy of other languages, that after verbs of continuing the participle is not an object of government; though possibly it may be so, in these instances, which are somewhat different. 2. After verbs of OMITTING; as, "He _omits giving_ an account of them."--_Tooke's Diversions of Purley_, i, 251. I question the propriety of this construction; and yet, _"omits to give"_ seems still more objectionable. Better, "He _omits all account_ of them." Or, "He _neglects to give_, or _forbears to give_, any account of them." L. Murray twice speaks of apologizing, "for the use he has made of his predecessors' labours, and for _omitting to insert_ their names."--_Octavo Gram., Pref._, p. vii; and _Note_, p. 73. The phrase, _"omitting to insert,"_ appears to me a downright solecism; and the pronoun _their_ is ambiguous, because there are well-known names both for the _men_ and for their _labours_, and he ought not to have omitted either species wholly, as he did. "Yet they absolutely _refuse doing so_, one with another."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 264. Better, _"refuse to do so."_ "I had as repeatedly _declined_ going."--_Leigh Hunt's Byron_, p. 15.

3. After verbs of PREVENTING; as, "Our sex are happily _prevented from engaging_ in these turbulent scenes."--_West's Letters to a Lady_, p. 74. "To prevent our frail natures _from deviating_ into bye paths [write _by-paths_] of error."--_Ib._, p. 100. "Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 99; _Murray's Gram._, p. 303; _Jamieson's Rhet._, p. 72. This construction, though very common, is palpably wrong: because its most natural interpretation is, "Prudence improperly prevents our speech or action." These critics ought to have known enough to say, "Prudence prevents _us from_ speaking or acting improperly." "This, however, doth not _hinder_ pronunciation _to borrow_ from singing."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 70. Here the infinitive is used, merely because it does not sound well to say, _"from borrowing from singing;"_ but the expression might very well be changed thus, _"from being indebted to singing."_ "'This by no means _hinders_ the book _to be_ a useful one.'--_Geddes._ It should be, _'from being.'_"--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 318.

4. After verbs of AVOIDING: as, "He might have _avoided treating_ of the origin of ideas."--_Tooke's Diversions_, i, 28. "We may _avoid talking_ nonsense on these subjects."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 281. "But carefully _avoid being_ at any time ostentatious and affected."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 233. "Here I cannot _avoid mentioning_[420] the assistance I have received."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. iv. "It is our duty to _avoid leading_ others into temptation,"--_West's Letters_, p. 33. "Nay, such a garden should in some measure _avoid imitating_ nature."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 251. "I can promise no entertainment to those who _shun thinking_."--_Ib._, i, 36. "We cannot _help being_ of opinion."--ENCYC. BRIT. _Murray's Gram._, p. 76. "I cannot _help being_ of opinion."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 311. "I cannot _help mentioning_ here one character more."--_Hughes. Spect._, No. 554. "These would sometimes very narrowly _miss being catched_ away."--_Steele_. "Carleton very narrowly _escaped being taken_."--_Grimshaw's Hist._, p. 111. Better, "escaped _from_ being taken;"--or, "_escaped capture_."

OBS. 19.--In sentences like the following, the participle seems to be improperly made _the object_ of the verb: "I intend _doing_ it."--"I remember _meeting_ him." Better, "I intend _to do_ it."--"I remember _to have met_ him." According to my notion, it is an error to suppose that verbs in general may govern participles. If there are any proper instances of such government, they would seem to be chiefly among verbs of _quitting_ or _avoiding_. And even here the analogy of General Grammar gives countenance to a different solution; as, "They _left beating of_ Paul."--_Acts_, xxi, 32. Better, "They _left beating_ Paul;"--or, "They _quit beating_ Paul." Greek, "[Greek: Epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon.]" Latin, "Cessaverunt _percutientes_ Paulum."--_Montanus_. "Cessarunt _coedere_ Paulum."--_Beza_. "Cessaverunt _percutere_ Paulum."--_Vulgate_. It is true, the English participle in _ing_ differs in some respects from that which usually corresponds to it in Latin or Greek; it has more of a substantive character, and is commonly put for the Latin gerund. If this difference does not destroy the argument from analogy, the opinion is still just, that _left_ and _quit_ are here _intransitive_, and that the participle _beating_ relates to the pronoun _they_. Such is unequivocally the construction of the Greek text, and also of the literal Latin of Arias Montanus. But, to the mere English grammarian, this method of parsing will not be apt to suggest itself: because, at first sight, the verbs appear to be transitive, and the participle in _ing_ has nothing to prove it an adjunct of the nominative, and not the object of the verb--unless, indeed, the mere fact that it is a participle, is proof of this.

OBS. 20.--Our great Compiler, Murray, not understanding this construction, or not observing what verbs admit of it, or require it, has very unskillfully laid it down as a rule, that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a _substantive phrase_ in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb, _expressed or understood_: as, 'By _promising much and performing but little_, we become despicable.' 'He studied to avoid _expressing himself too severely_.'"--_Octavo Gram._, p. 194.[421] This very popular author seems never to have known that participles, as such, may be governed in English by prepositions. And yet he knew, and said, that "prepositions do not, _like articles and pronouns_, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive."--_Ibid._ This he avouches in the same breath in which he gives that "nature" to a participle and its adverb! For, by a false comma after _much_, he cuts his first "_substantive phrase_" absurdly in two; and doubtless supposes a false ellipsis of _by_ before the participle _performing_. Of his method of resolving the second example, some notice has already been taken, in Observations 4th and 5th on Rule 5th. Though he pretends that the whole phrase is in the objective case, "the truth is, the assertion grammatically affects the first word only;" which in one aspect he regards as a noun, and in an other as a participle: whereas he himself, on the preceding page, had adopted from Lowth a different doctrine, and cautioned the learner against treating words in _ing_, "as if they were of an _amphibious_ species, partly nouns and partly _verbs_;" that is, "partly nouns and partly _participles_;" for, according to Murray, Lowth, and many others, participles are verbs. The term, "_substantive phrase_," itself a solecism, was invented merely to cloak this otherwise bald inconsistency. Copying Lowth again, the great Compiler defines a phrase to be "two or more words rightly put together;" and, surely, if we have a well-digested system of grammar, whatsoever words are rightly put together, may be regularly parsed by it. But how can one indivisible word be consistently made two different parts of speech at once? And is not this the situation of every transitive participle that is made either the _subject_ or the _object_ of a verb? Adjuncts never alter either the nature or the construction of the words on which they depend; and participial nouns differ from participles in both. The former express actions _as things_; the latter generally attribute them to their agents or recipients.

OBS. 21.--The Latin gerund is "a kind of verbal noun, partaking of the nature of a participle."--_Webster's Dict._ "A gerund is a participial noun, of the neuter gender, and singular-number, declinable like a substantive, having no vocative, construed like a substantive, and governing the case of its verb."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 70. In the Latin gerund thus defined, there is an appearance of ancient classical authority for that "amphibious species" of words of which so much notice has already been taken. Our participle in _ing_, when governed by a preposition, undoubtedly corresponds very nearly, both in sense and construction, to this Latin gerund; the principal difference being, that the one is declined, like a noun, and the other is not. The analogy, however, is but lamely maintained, when we come to those irregular constructions in which the participle is made a half-noun in English. It is true, the gerund of the nominative case may be made the subject of a verb in Latin; but we do not translate it by the English participle, but rather by the infinitive, or still oftener by the verb with the auxiliary _must_: as, "_Vivendum est mihi rectè_, I must live well."--_Grant's L. Gram._, p. 232. This is better English than the nearer version, "Living correctly is necessary for me;" and the exact imitation, "Living is to me correctly," is nonsense. Nor does the Latin gerund often govern the genitive like a noun, or ever stand as the direct object of a transitive verb, except in some few doubtful instances about which the grammarians dispute. For, in fact, to explain this species of words, has puzzled the Latin grammarians about as much as the English; though the former do not appear to have fallen into those palpable self-contradictions which embarrass the instructions of the latter.

OBS. 22.--Dr. Adam says, "The gerund in English becomes a substantive, by _prefixing_ the article to it, and then it is always to be construed with the preposition _of_; as, 'He is employed _in writing_ letters,' or, 'in _the writing of_ letters:' but it is improper to say, 'in _the writing_ letters,' or, 'in _writing of_ letters.'"--_Latin and English Gram._, p. 184. This doctrine is also taught by Lowth, Priestley, Murray, Comly, Chandler, and many others; most of whom extend the principle to all participles that govern the possessive case; and they might as well have added all such as are made either the subjects or the objects of verbs, and such as are put for nominatives after verbs neuter. But Crombie, Allen, Churchill, S. S. Greene, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and some others, teach that participles may perform these several offices of a substantive, without dropping the regimen and adjuncts of participles. This doctrine, too, Murray and his copyists absurdly endeavour to reconcile with the other, by resorting to the idle fiction of "_substantive phrases_" endued with all these powers: as, "_His being at enmity with Cæsar_ was the cause of perpetual discord."--_Crombie's Treatise_, p. 237; _Churchill's Gram._, p. 141. "Another fault is _allowing it to supersede_ the use of a point."-- _Churchill's Gram._, p. 372. "To be sure there is a possibility of some ignorant _reader's confounding the two vowels_ in pronunciation."--_Ib._, p. 375. It is much better to avoid all such English as this. Say, rather, "_His enmity with Cæsar_ was the cause of perpetual discord."--"An other fault is _the allowing of_ it to _supersede_ the use of a point."--"To be sure, there is a possibility _that_ some ignorant _reader may confound_ the two vowels, in pronunciation."

OBS. 23.--In French, the infinitive is governed by several different prepositions, and the gerundive by one only, the preposition _en_,--which, however, is sometimes suppressed; as, "_en passant, en faisant,--il alloit courant_."--_Traité des Participes_, p. 2. In English, the gerundive is governed by several different prepositions, and the infinitive by one only, the preposition _to_,--which, in like manner, is sometimes suppressed; as, "_to pass, to do,--I saw him run_." The difficulties in the syntax of the French participle in _ant_, which corresponds to ours in _ing_, are apparently as great in themselves, as those which the syntax of the English word presents; but they result from entirely different causes, and chiefly from the liability there is of confounding the participle with the verbal adjective, which is formed from it. The confounding of it with the gerundive is now, in either language, of little or no consequence, since in modern French, as well as in English, both are indeclinable. For this reason, I have framed the syntactical rule for participles so as to include under that name the gerund, or gerundive, which is a participle governed by a preposition. The great difficulty with us, is, to determine whether the participle ought, or ought not, to be allowed to assume _other_ characteristics of a noun, without dropping those of a participle, and without becoming wholly a noun. The liability of confounding the English participle with the verbal or participial adjective, amounts to nothing more than the occasional misnaming of a word in parsing; or perhaps an occasional ambiguity in the style of some writer, as in the following citation: "I am resolved, 'let the newspapers say what they please of _canvassing_ beauties, _haranguing_ toasts, and _mobbing_ demireps,' not to believe one syllable."--_Jane West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p. 74. From these words, it is scarcely possible to find out, even with the help of the context whether these three sorts of ladies are spoken of as the canvassers, haranguers, and mobbers, or as being canvassed, harangued, and mobbed. If the prolixity and multiplicity of these observations transcend the reader's patience, let him consider that the questions at issue cannot be settled by the brief enunciation of loose individual opinions, but must be examined in the light of _all the analogies and facts_ that bear upon them. So considerable are the difficulties of properly distinguishing the participle from the verbal adjective in French, that that indefatigable grammarian, Girault Du Vivier, after completing his _Grammaire des Grammaires_ in two large octavo volumes, thought proper to _enlarge_ his instructions on this head, and to publish them in a separate book, (_Traité des Participes_,) though we have it on his own authority, that the rule for participles had already given rise to a greater number of dissertations and particular treatises than any other point in French grammar.

OBS. 24.--A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his _strength's_ declining."--"He was sensible of his _strength_ declining." In the former sentence, the noun _strength_ should be in the objective case, governed by _felt_; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by _declining_. Thus: "He felt his _strength_ declining;" i.e., "_felt it decline_."--"He was sensible of his _strength's_ declining;" i.e., "_of its decline_." These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable. This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th. But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.

OBS. 25.--Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science. And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate. The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once. The absolute necessity of classing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof. Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of _verbs, participles_, and _nouns_, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them. For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T. O. Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English grammar. Of the participle the latter gives no formal definition, but he represents it as "_a form_, in which _the action_ denoted by _the verb_ is capable of being joined _to a noun_ as _its quality_, or accident."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is _a mere mode of the verb_ is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."--_Ib._, p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a _noun_: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking _s_ at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has _the comings_ in of a prince, may be ruined _by his_ own _gaming_, or his _wife's squandering_.'"--_Ib._, p. 144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the _s_, not at the end, but in the middle; for _comings-in_, (an obsolete expression for _revenues_,) is not two words, but one. Nor are _gaming_ and _squandering_, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles _become nouns_ when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "_is_" and "_may be_" are not nouns, but participles: "_Walking is_ the best exercise, though riding _may be_ more pleasant."--_Ib._, p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguishing of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.

OBS. 26.--Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's--and no worse than what the reader may find in many an English Grammar now in use. This author's fault is not so much a lack of learning or of comprehension, as of order and discrimination. We see in him, that it is possible for a man to be well acquainted with English authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter miserably in describing the nature and uses of the English participle. Like many others, he does not acknowledge this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but commences his account of it by the following absurdity: "The participles _are adjectives_ derived from the verb; as, _pursuing, pursued, having pursued_."--_Elements of E. Gram._, p. 62. This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but merges the whole of the former species in a part of speech of which he had not even recognized the latter as a subdivision: "An adjective shows the _quality_ of a thing. Adjectives may be reduced to five classes: 1. Common--2. Proper--3. Numeral--4. Pronominal--5. Compound."--_Ib._, p. 47. Now, if "participles are adjectives," to which of these five classes do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth class, without which this distribution is false and incomplete: as, "a _loving_ father; an _approved_ copy." The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun. But says our author, "Participles, as simple adjectives, belong to _a noun_; as, a _loving_ father; an _approved_ copy;--as parts of the verb, they have the same government _as_ their verbs have; as, his father, _recalling the pleasures_ of past years, joined their party."--_Ib._, p. 170. What confusion is this! a complete jumble of adjectives, participles, and "parts of verbs!" Again: "Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early _rising_ is conducive to health; I like _writing_; we depend on _seeing_ you."--_Ib._, p. 171. Here _rising_ and _writing_ are nouns; but _seeing_ is a participle, because it is active and governs _you_, Compare this second jumble with the definition above. Again he proceeds: "To participles thus used, many of our best authors prefix the article; as, '_The being chosen_ did not prevent disorderly behaviour.' Bp. Tomline. '_The not knowing how to pass_ our vacant hours.' Seed."--_Ib._, p. 171. These examples I take to be bad English. Say rather, "The _state of election_ did not prevent disorderly behaviour."--"The _want of some entertainment for_ our vacant hours." The author again proceeds: "If a noun limits the meaning of a participle thus used, that noun is put in the genitive; as, your _father's coming_ was unexected."--_Ib._, p. 171. Here _coming_ is a noun, and no participle at all. But the author has a marginal note, "A possessive pronoun is equivalent to a genitive;" (_ibid._;) and he means to approve of possessives before active participles: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from _our having received the words_ through a French medium."--_Ib._, p. 116. This brings us again to that difficult and apparently unresolvable problem, whether participles as such, by virtue of their mixed gerundive character, can, or cannot, govern the possessive case; a question, about which, the more a man examines it, the more he may doubt.