Chapter II: Syntax (3)

5. An unwary writer sometimes attaches a participle to the subject of a previous sentence, assuming that it will be the subject of the new sentence also, and then finds (or rather is not awake enough to find) himself mistaken. This is a trap into which good writers sometimes fall, and so dangerous to bad writers that we shall give many examples. It is important for the tiro to realize that he has not satisfied the elementary requirements of grammar until he has attached the participle to a noun in the same sentence as itself, not in another. He must also remember that, for instance, _I went and he came_, though often spoken of loosely as a sentence, is in fact as fully two sentences as if each half of it were ten lines long, and the two were parted by a full stop and not connected by a conjunction.

_They_ had now reached the airy dwelling where Mrs. Macshake resided, and _having rung, the door_ was at length most deliberately opened.--S. FERRIER.

_The lovers_ sought a shelter, and, mutually _charmed_ with each other, _time_ flew for a while on downy pinions.--S. FERRIER.

A molecular _change_ is propagated to the muscles by which the body is retracted, and _causing_ them to contract, _the act_ of retraction is brought about.--HUXLEY.

_Joseph_, as they supposed, by tampering with Will, got all my secrets, and was acquainted with all my motions--; and _having_ also _undertaken_ to watch all those of his young lady, the wise _family_ were secure.--RICHARDSON.

_Miss Pinkerton_ ... in vain ... tried to overawe her. _Attempting_ once to scold her in public, _Rebecca_ hit upon the ... plan of answering her in French, which quite routed the old woman.--THACKERAY.

But _he_ thought it derogatory to a brave knight passively to await the assault, and _ordering_ his own men to charge, the hostile _squadrons_, rapidly advancing against each other, met midway on the plain.--PRESCOTT.

Alvarado, roused by the noise of the attack on this quarter, hastened to the support of his officer, when _Almagro_, seizing the occasion, pushed across the bridge, dispersed the small body left to defend it, and, _falling_ on Alvarado’s rear, _that general_ saw himself hemmed in on all sides.--PRESCOTT.

_Murtagh_, without a word of reply, went to the door, and _shouting_ into the passage something in Irish, _the room_ was instantly filled with bog-trotters.--BORROW.

But, as before, _Anne_ once more made me smart, and _having equipped_ herself in a gown and bonnet of mine--not of the newest--off _we_ set.--CROCKETT.

At this I was silent for a little, and then _I_ resolved to speak plainly to Anne. But not _being_ ready with my words, _she_ got in first.--CROCKETT.

For many years _I_ had to contend with much opposition in the nature of scepticism; but _having had_ hundreds of successful cases and proofs _it_ has become such an established fact in the eastern counties that many landowners, &c., would not think of sinking a well without first seeking the aid of a water diviner.--_Times._

6. A more obvious trap, and consequently less fatal, is a change from the active construction that may have been intended to a passive, without corresponding alterations. If the writers of the next two had used _we must admit_ instead of _it must be admitted_, _a policy that they put forward_, instead of _a policy put forward_, the participles _hesitating_ and _believing_ would have had owners.

While _hesitating_ to accept this terrible indictment of French infancy, _it must be admitted_ that French literature in all its strength and wealth is a grown-up literature.--_Spectator._

He and those with whom he acted were responsible for the policy promulgated--_a policy_ put forward in all seriousness and honesty _believing_ it to be essential to the obtaining of the better government of Ireland.--_Times._

7. Participles that seem to belong to a noun, but do not.

Letters on the constant stopping of omnibuses, thus _causing_ considerable suffering to the horses.

Does _causing_ agree with _letters_? Then the letters annoy the horses. With _stopping_? Then stopping causes suffering by stopping (_thus_). With _omnibuses_? The horses possibly blame those innocents, but we can hardly suppose a human being, even the writer of the sentence, so illogical. The word _thus_, however, is often considered to have a kind of dispensing power, freeing its participle from all obligations; so:

The Prince was, by the special command of his Majesty the Emperor, made the guardian of H.I.H. the Crown Prince, _thus necessitating_ the Prince’s constant presence in the capital of Japan.--_Times._

A very wealthy man can never be sure even of friendship,--while the highest, strongest and noblest kind of love is nearly always denied to him, in this way _carrying out_ the fulfilment of those strange but true words:--‘How hardly shall he that is a rich man enter the Kingdom of Heaven!’--CORELLI.

It is not _love_ that carries out, but the power that denies love, which is not mentioned.

8. Really bad unattached or wrongly attached participles. The reader will generally find no difficulty in seeing what has led to the blunder, and if he will take the trouble to do this, will be less likely to make similar blunders himself.

And then _stooping_ to take up the key to let _myself_ into the garden, _he_ started and looked as if he heard somebody near the door.--RICHARDSON.

Sir--With reference to this question ‘Do we believe?’, while _recognizing_ the vastness of the subject, its modern aspect has some definite features.--_Daily Telegraph._

_Taken_ in conjunction with the splendid white and brown trout-fishing of the Rosses lakes and rivers, anglers have now the opportunity of fishing one of the best, if not the best, fishery to be obtained in Ireland.--ADVT.

Sir--_Having read_ with much interest the letters re ‘Believe only’ now appearing in the _Daily Telegraph_, perhaps some of your readers might be interested to know the following texts which have led some great men to ‘believe only’.--_Daily Telegraph._

_Being pushed_ unceremoniously to one side--which was precisely what I wished--he usurped my place.--C. BRONTË.

The higher forms of speech acquire a secondary strength from association. _Having_, in actual life, habitually _heard_ them in connexion with mental impressions, and _having been accustomed_ to meet with them in the most powerful writing, they come to have in themselves a species of force.--SPENCER.

_Standing_ over one of the sluices of the Aswan dam last January, not only was the vibration evident to the senses....--_Times._

The following passage may be commended for use in examination papers. ‘Always _beloved_ by the Imperial couple who are to-day the Sovereign lord and lady of Great Britain, their Majesties have, on many occasions since the Devonshire houses rejoiced in a mistress once more, honoured them by visits extending over some days.’--_Times._

The last, as the _Times_ reviewer has noticed, will repay analysis in several ways.

=9. The absolute construction= is not much to be recommended, having generally an alien air in English; but it is sometimes useful. It must be observed, first, that the case used should now invariably be the subjective, though it was otherwise in old English. Secondly, it is very seldom advisable to make an absolute construction and insert a pronoun for the purpose when the participle might simply be attached in ordinary agreement to a noun already to hand. Thirdly, it is very bad to use the construction, but omit to give the participle a noun or pronoun to itself. These three transgressions will be illustrated, in the same order, by the next three examples. But many of the wrong sentences in 5 above may be regarded as absolute constructions with the subject omitted.

I, with whom that Impulse was the most intractable, the most capricious, the most maddening of masters (_him_ before me always excepted)....--C. BRONTË.

‘Special’ is a much overworked word, _it_ being loosely used to mean great in degree, also peculiar in kind.--R. G. WHITE.

This is said now because, _having been said_ before, I have been judged as if I had made the pretensions which were then and which are now again disclaimed.--R. G. WHITE.

THE GERUND

There are three questions to be considered: whether a writer ought to let us know that he is using a gerund and not a participle; when a gerund may be used without its subject’s being expressed; when a gerund with preposition is to be preferred to the infinitive.

=1. Is the gerund to be made recognizable?= And, in the circumstances that make it possible, that is, when its subject is expressed, is this to be done sometimes, or always?

It is done by putting what we call for shortness’ sake the subject of the gerund (i. e., the word _me_ or _my_ in _me doing_ or _my doing_) in the possessive instead of in the objective or subjective case.

Take the typical sentence: I dislike my best friend(’s) violating my privacy. It cannot be a true account of the matter to say that _friend_ is the object of _I dislike_, and has a participle _violating_ attached to it. For (a) we can substitute _resent_, which never takes a personal object, for _dislike_, without changing the sense. (b) If we substitute a passive construction, also without changing the sense, we find that _dislike_ has quite a different object--_privacy_.--I dislike my privacy being violated by my friend. (c) Many of us would be willing to adopt the sentiment conveyed who yet would not admit for a moment that they disliked their best friend even when he intruded; they condemn the sin, but not the sinner.

_Violating_ then is not an ordinary participle. It does not follow yet that it is a gerund. It may be an extraordinary participle, fused into one notion with the noun, so that _a friend violating_ means _the-violation-by-a-friend_. The Latin scholar here at once puts in the idiom of _occisus Caesar_, which does not generally mean _Caesar after he was killed_, as it naturally should, but the killing of Caesar, or the fact that Caesar had been killed. The parallel is close (though the use is practically confined to the passive in Latin), and familiar to all who know any Latin at all. But it shows not so much what the English construction is as how educated people have been able to reconcile themselves to an ambiguous and not very reasonable idiom--not very reasonable, that is, after language has thrown off its early limitations, and got over the first difficulty of accomplishing abstract expression of any kind. The sort of fusion assumed is further illustrated for the Latinist, though not so closely, by the Latin accusative and infinitive. This theory then takes _violating_ for a participle fused into one notion with _friend_. There are two difficulties.

I. The construction in English is, though in the nature of things not as common, yet as easy in the passive as in the active. Now the passive of _violating_ is either _violated_ or _being violated_. It is quite natural to say, Privacy violated once is no longer inviolable. Why then should it be most unnatural to say, The worst of privacy violated once is that it is no longer inviolable? No one, not purposely seeking the unusual for some reason or other, would omit _being_ before _violated_ in the second. Yet as participles _violated_ and _being violated_ are equally good--not indeed always, but in this context, as the simpler Privacy sentence shows. The only difference between the two participles (except that in brevity, which tells against _being violated_) is that the longer form can also be the gerund, and the shorter cannot. The almost invariable choice of it is due to the instinctive feeling that what we are using is or ought to be the gerund. A more convincing instance than this mere adaptation of our original example may be added:

Many years ago I became impressed with the necessity for _our infantry being taught and practised_ in the skilful use of their rifle.--LORD ROBERTS.

_The necessity for our infantry taught and practised_ is absolutely impossible. But why, _if being_ taught is participle, and not gerund?

II. Assuming that the fused-participle theory is satisfactory and recognized, whence comes the general, though not universal impression among those who, without being well versed in grammar, are habitually careful how they speak and write, that constructions like the following are ignorant vulgarisms?--It is no use he (his) doing it; it is no use him (his) doing it; that need not prevent us (our) believing; excuse me (my) interrupting you; a thing (thing’s) existing does not prove that it ought to exist; I was annoyed by Tom (Tom’s) hesitating; the Tsar (Tsar’s) leaving Russia is significant; it failed through the King (King’s) refusing his signature; without us (our) hearing the man, the facts cannot be got at; without the man (man’s) telling us himself, we can never know. With a single exception for one (not both) of the first two, none of these ought to cause a moment’s uneasiness to any one who was consciously or unconsciously in the fused-participle frame of mind; and if they do cause uneasiness it shows that that frame of mind is not effectively present.

The Fused-Participle Theory, having no sufficient answer to these objections, but seeing that the gerund’s case is also weak, naturally tries a counter-attack:--If on the other hand the gerund theory is satisfactory and recognized, how is it conceivable that people should leave out the possessive _’s_ in the reckless way they do? To which, however, the Gerund makes reply:--I regret that they do leave it out, but at least we can see how they come to; it is the combined result of a mistake and an inconvenience. The mistake is caused by certain types of sentence in which a real, not a fused participle is so used that the noun and its (unfused) participle give a sense hardly distinguishable from a possessive noun and a gerund. Examples are:

This plan has now been abandoned owing to _circumstances requiring_ the convocation of representatives of the people at the earliest possible moment.--_Times._

... by imposing as great difficulty as possible on _parents and publicans using_ child messengers.--_Times._

Of course no obstacles should be put in the way of _charitable people providing_ free or other meals if they think fit.--_Times._

The notion of _the Czar being addressed_ in such terms by the nobility of his capital would have been regarded as an absolute impossibility.--_Spectator._

There is of course a difference. For instance, in the example about the Czar, as in a previous one about _conceiving Matthew Arnold permitting_, the participle has a pictorial effect; it invites us to imagine the physical appearance of these two great men under indignity instead of merely thinking of the abstract indignity, as we should have done if _Czar’s_ and _Arnold’s_ had shown that we had a gerund; but the difference is very fine; the possessive sign might be inserted without practical effect in all these four, and in hundreds like them. And unlearned people may be excused for deducing that the subject of the gerund can be used at pleasure without the possessive sign, while the learned comfort themselves with the fused-participle theory. That is the mistake. The inconvenience is this: it is easy enough to use the possessive adjectives (_my_, &c.), and to add the possessive sign to most names and many single nouns; but the subject of a gerund is often a long phrase, after which the sign is intolerable. So the mistake (that the gerund may have a subject not marked by the possessive) is eagerly applied to obviating the inconvenience (that long gerund subjects must be avoided). And that is why people drop their possessive _’s_, and why you, the Fused Participle, flourish, defrauding both me, the Gerund, and the honest participle. Thus answered, the Fused Participle does not continue the argument, but pleads only that there is room for all three forms.

Before giving some examples to help in the decision, we shall summarize our own opinion. (1) It is not a matter to be decided by appeal to historical grammar. All three constructions may have separate legitimate descents, and yet in the interests of clear thought and expression it may be better for one of them to be abandoned. (2) There are two opposite tendencies at present: among careful writers, to avoid the fused participle (this, being negative, can naturally not be illustrated) and to put possessive signs in slightly uncomfortable places by way of compensation; among slovenly writers, to throw off all limits of length for the subject of the fused participle. (3) Long fused-participle phrases are a variety of abstract expression, and as such to be deprecated. Among the resources of civilization is the power of choosing between different ways of saying the same thing; and literary skill is very much a matter of exercising that power; a writer should recognize that if he cannot get round an ugly fused participle there is still much for him to learn. (4) Opportunities for ambiguity are so abundant in English, owing to the number of words whose parsing depends on context, that all aids to precision are valuable; and it is not too much to expect a writer to know and let us know whether he means a participle or a gerund.

_a._ That the possessive of all pronouns that have the form should be used instead of the objective or subjective is hardly disputed. Correct accordingly:

You may rely upon _me_ doing all in my power.--SIR W. HARCOURT.

The confounded fetterlock clapped on my movements by old Griffiths prevents _me_ repairing to England in person.--SCOTT.

But when it comes to _us_ following his life and example....--_Daily Telegraph._

Nothing can prevent _it_ being the main issue at the General Election.--_Spectator._

One of them, if you will pardon _me_ reminding you, is that no discussion is to pass between us.--E. F. BENSON.

Frederick had already accepted the crown, lest James should object to _him_ doing so.--_Times._

... notwithstanding the fact that their suspicions of ease-loving, ear-tickling parsons prevent _them_ supporting the commercial churches of our time.--_Daily Telegraph._

_b._ Examples in which the possessive of nouns might be written without a qualm.

Nearly a week passed over without _Mr. Fairford_ hearing a word directly from his son.--SCOTT.

Mrs. Downe Wright had not forgiven the indignity of _her son_ having been refused by Mary.--S. FERRIER.

In no other religion is there a thought of _man_ being saved by grace and not by merit.--_Daily Telegraph._

And it is said that, on _a visitor_ once asking to see his library, Descartes led him....--HUXLEY.

It is true that one of our objects was to prevent[10] _children_ ‘sipping’ the liquor they were sent for.--_Times._

Orders were sometimes issued to prohibit[1a] _soldiers_ buying and eating cucumbers.--_Times._

Renewed efforts at a settlement in 1891 failed through the _Swedish Government_ leading off with a flippant and offensive suggestion.--NANSEN.

Hurried reading results in _the learner_ forgetting half of what he reads, or in _his_ forming vague conceptions.--SWEET.

_c._ All the last set involved what were either actual or virtual names of persons; there is more difficulty with abstract nouns, compound subjects, and words of which the possessive is ugly. Those that may perhaps bear the possessive mark will be put first, and alterations suggested for the others.

We look forward to _much attention_ being given.--_Times._

He affirmed that such increases were the rule in that city on _the change_ being made.--_Times._

I live in hopes of _this discussion_ resulting in some modification in our form of belief.--_Daily Telegraph._ (that this discussion may result)

The real objection to the possessive here is merely the addition to the crowd of sibilants.

In the event of _the passage_ being found, he will esteem it a favour ... (if the passage is found)

Conceive my vexation at being told by Papa this morning that he had not the least objection to _Edward and me_ marrying whenever we pleased.--S. FERRIER. (our)

Or, if the names are essential, _did not in the least mind how soon Edward and I married_.

It has been replied to the absurd taunt about _the French_ inventing nothing, that at least Descartes invented German philosophy.--MORLEY. (Frenchmen’s)

_d._ A modern construction called the compound possessive was mentioned at the end of the section on Cases. It is sometimes ugly, sometimes inoffensive; that is a matter of degree and of knowing where to draw the line; there is no objection to it in principle. And the application of it will sometimes help out a gerund. The first quotation gives a compound possessive simply; the second, a gerund construction to which it ought to be applicable; the third and fourth, two to which it can be applied; and the last, one to which it cannot.

A protestation, read at Edinburgh, was followed, on _Archibald Johnston of Warriston’s_ suggestion, by....--J. R. GREEN.

The retirement of Judge Stonor was made the subject of special reference yesterday on the occasion of _Sir W. L. Selfe, his successor_, taking his seat in Marylebone County Court.--_Times._

The mere fact of _such a premier_ being endured shows....--BAGEHOT.

There is no possibility of _the dissolution of the legislative union_ becoming a vital question.--_Spectator._

If some means could be devised for ... insisting upon _many English guardians of the poor_ making themselves more acquainted....--_Times._

The only objection to a possessive mark after _successor_ is that the two commas cannot be dispensed with; we must say _when ... took_ for _on the occasion of ... taking_. _Such a premier’s_ will certainly pass. In the _Spectator_ sentence, we should ourselves allow _union’s_; opinions will differ. But to put the _’s_ after _poor_ in the last sentence would be ridiculous; that sentence must be rewritten--insisting that many English guardians of the poor should make--or else _poor-law Guardians’_ must be used.

_e._ Sometimes we can get over the difficulty without abandoning the gerund, by some slight change of order.

This incentive can only be supplied by _the nation itself_ taking the matter up seriously.--LORD ROBERTS.

If _itself’s_ is objected to, omit _itself_ (or shift it to the end), and write _nation’s_.

_f._ But many types of sentence remain that will have to be completely changed if the gerund is to be recognizable. It will be admitted about most of our examples that the change is not to be regretted. The subject of the gerund is italicized in each, to emphasize its length.

We have to account for _the collision of two great fleets, so equal in material strength that the issue was thought doubtful by many careful statisticians_, ending in the total destruction of one of them and in the immunity of the other from damage greater than might well be incurred in a mere skirmish.--_Times._

For _account for ... ending_ write _ascertain why ... ended_. The sentence is radically bad, because the essential construction seems complete at _collision_--a false scent. That, which is one of the worst literary sins, is the frequent result of long fused participles. It is quite practically possible here for readers to have supposed that they were going to be told why the fleets met, and not why the meeting ended as it did. In the remaining sentences, we shall say when there is false scent, but leave the reader to examine it.

The success of the negotiations depends on _the Russian Minister at Tokio_ being allowed to convince Japan that....--_Times._

The compound possessive--Tokio’s--is tempting, but perhaps overbold. Insert _whether_ after _depends on_, and write _is_ for _being_.

So far from _this_ being the case, the policy ... was actually decided upon before ... the question ... was raised.--_Times._

Omit _being the case_.

We are not without tokens of _an openness for this higher truth also, of a keen though uncultivated sense for it_, having existed in Burns.--CARLYLE.

For the first _of_ write _that_, omit the second _of_, and omit _having_. False scent.

There is no apparent evidence of _an early peace_ being necessitated by the pecuniary exigencies of the Russian Government.--SIR HOWARD VINCENT.

For _of ... being_ write _that ... will be_, if _peace’s_ cannot be endured.

The general effect of his words was to show the absurdity of _the Secretary of State for War, and our military authorities generally_, denouncing the Militia as useless or redundant.--_Spectator._

For _the absurdity of ... denouncing_ write _how absurd it was for ... to denounce_. False scent, though less deceptive.

Apparently his mission was decided upon without _that of the British and Spanish Ministers_ having been taken into account, or, at all events, without their having been sufficiently reckoned with.--_Times._

Without regard (at all events without sufficient regard) to that of....

... capital seeking employment in foreign protected countries, in consequence of _manufacturing business in many branches in which it might be employed at home_ being rendered unprofitable by our system of free trade.--LORD GOSCHEN.

For _in consequence of ... being_ write _because ... has been_. Bad false scent again.

So far from _the relief given to agriculture by the State paying one-half of the rates_ being inequitable, it is but a bare act of justice.--_Spectator._

Observe the fused participle within fused participle here; and read thus: So far from its being inequitable that the state should relieve, &c.

After these specimens, chosen not as exceptional ones, but merely as not admitting of simple correction by insertion of the possessive mark, the reader will perhaps agree that the long gerund subject--or rather noun phrase of the fused participle--is a monstrosity, the abolition of which would be a relief to him, and good discipline for the writer.

Two sentences are added to show the chaotic state of present practice. Noticing the bold use of the strict gerund in the first, we conclude that the author is a sound gerundite, faithful in spite of all temptations; but a few pages later comes the needless relapse into fused participle.

I remember old _Colney’s_ once, in old days, _calling_ that kind of marriage a sarcophagus.--MEREDITH.

She had thought in her heart that _Mr. Barmby espousing_ the girl would smoothe a troubled prospect.--MEREDITH.

The following looks like a deliberate avoidance of both constructions by a writer who is undecided between the two. _Its being_ is what should have been written.

I do not say that the advice is not sound, or complain that it is given. I do deprecate _that it should be_ taken.--_Times._

And perhaps a shyness of _something’s being shown_ accounts for the next odd arrangement; it is true that entire recasting is what is called for.

_There being shown to be something_ radically defective in the management of the Bank _led_ to the appointment of a Committee.--H. D. MACLEOD.

=2. When must the subject of the gerund (or infinitive) be expressed, and when omitted?=

This is not a controversial matter like the last; the principles are quite simple, and will be accepted; but it is necessary to state and illustrate them because they are often forgotten. As the same mistakes are sometimes made with the infinitive, that is to be considered as included.

Roughly, the subject of the gerund (or infinitive) should be expressed if it is different from, and omitted if it is the same as, the subject of the sentence. To omit it when different is positively wrong, and may produce actual ambiguity or worse, though sometimes there is only a slipshod effect; to insert it when the same is generally clumsy.

No one would say ‘I succeeded to his property upon dying’, because, _I_ being the subject of the sentence, _my_ is naturally suggested instead of the necessary _his_ as subject of the gerund; the _his_ must be inserted before _dying_, even though the nature of the case obviates ambiguity. To take an instance that will show both sides, the following is correct:

I shut the door and stood with my back to it. Then, instead of _his philandering_ with Bess, I, Clementina MacTaggart, had some plain speech with John Barnaby.--CROCKETT.

Subject of the sentence, I; subject of the gerund, he; they are different; therefore the _he_ must be expressed, in the shape of _his_. Now rewrite the main sentence as--John Barnaby heard some plain speech from me, Clementina MacTaggart. The sense is the same; but the _his_ before _philandering_ at once becomes superfluous; it is not yet seriously in the way, because we do not know what is the subject of _philandering_, the name only coming later. Now rewrite it again as--Then John Barnaby heard some plain speech from ... instead of ... The _his_ is now so clumsy as to be almost impossible.

The insertion of superfluous subjects is much less common than the omission of necessary ones; but three examples follow. The first is a rare and precious variety; the second has no apparent justification; for the third it may be said that the unusual _his_ has the same effect as the insertion of the parenthetic words _as he actually does_ after _limiting_ would have had.

You took food to him, but instead of _he reaching_ out his hand and taking it, he kept asking for food.--_Daily Telegraph._

Harsh facts: sure as she was of _her_ never _losing_ her filial hold of the beloved.--MEREDITH.

I have said that Mr. Chamberlain has no warrant for _his limiting_ the phrase ... to the competitive manufacture of goods.--LORD GOSCHEN.

In giving the rule summarily, we used the phrase _subject of the sentence_. That phrase is not to be confined to the subject of the main sentence, but to be referred instead, when necessary, to the subject of the subordinate clause in which the gerund may stand. For instance:

The good, the illuminated, sit apart from the rest, censuring their dullness and vices, as if they thought that, _by sitting_ very grand in their chairs, the very brokers, attorneys, and congressmen would see the error of their ways, and flock to them.--EMERSON.

Here _by sitting_ breaks the rule, though the subject of _sitting_ is the same as that of the main verb _sit_, because the subject of the clause in which _sitting_ comes is not _the good_, but _brokers, &c._ The right way to mend this is not to insert _their_ before _sitting_--which after all is clumsy, though correct--but to make _the good_ the subject of the clause also, by writing _as if they thought that by sitting ... they would make the brokers ... see the error_.

And sometimes _subject of the sentence_ is to be interpreted still more freely as the word grammatically dominant in the part of the sentence that contains the gerund. For instance:

From the Bible alone was she taught the duties of morality, but familiarized to her taste _by hearing_ its stories and precepts from the lips she best loved.--S. FERRIER.

Here the dominant word is _Bible_, to which _familiarized_ belongs. So, though _she_ does happen to be the main subject, _her_ must be inserted because the _familiarized_ phrase removes the gerund from the reach of the main subject.

After these explanations we add miscellaneous instances. It will be seen that transgression of the rule, though it seldom makes a sentence ambiguous enough to deceive, easily makes it ambiguous enough to amuse the reader at wrong moments, or gives an impression of amateurish work. Mistakes are mended, sometimes by inserting the subject of the gerund (or infinitive), sometimes by changing the main subject to make it the same as that of the gerund, sometimes by other recasting.

... an excellent arrangement for a breeching, which, when released, remains with the carriage, so that lead or centre horses can be put in the wheel _without having_ to affix a new breeching.--_Times._

Lucky, reflects the reader, since horses are not good at affixing breechings. Write _the drivers can put ... horses ... without having to affix_.

I cultivated a passionless and cold exterior, for I discovered that _by assuming_ such a character, certain otherwise crafty persons would talk more readily before me.--CORELLI.

Write _if I assumed_; or else _I should induce certain ... persons to talk_. It will be noticed that the mistake here, and often, is analogous to the most frequent form of wrongly attached participle (participle, 5); the writer does not observe that he has practically passed from the sphere of the sentence whose subject was the word that he still allows to operate.

_After following_ a country Church of England clergyman for a period of half a century, a newly-appointed, youthful vicar, totally unacquainted with rural life, comes into the parish, and at once commences to alter the services of the Church, believed in by the parishioners for generations.--_Daily Telegraph._

Grammar gives _his_, i. e., the new vicar’s, as subject of _following_; it is really either _my_ or _the parishioners’_. Insert _my_ or _our_, or write _After we (I) have followed_.

I am sensible that _by conniving_ at it it will take too deep root ever to be eradicated.--_Times._

Insert _our_, or write _if connived at_.

This was experienced by certain sensitive temperaments, either by sensations which produced shivering, or _by seeing_ at night a peculiar light in the air.--_Times._

Who or what sees? Certainly not _this_, the main subject. Not even _temperaments_, which have no eyes. Write _Persons of sensitive temperament experienced this, &c._

But the commercial interests of both Great Britain and the United States were too closely affected by the terms of the Russo-Chinese agreement _to let_ it pass unnoticed.--_Times._

It is not the interests that cannot let it pass, but the countries. Insert _for those countries_ before _to let_; or write _Both Great Britain and the United States were too closely affected in their interests to let...._

And it would be well for all concerned, for motor drivers and the public alike, if this were made law, instead of _fixing_ a maximum speed.--_Times._

Write _if the law required this...._

And _in order to bring_ her to a right understanding, she underwent a system of persecution.--S. FERRIER.

Write _they subjected her to_ for _she underwent_.

Her friendship is too precious to me, not _to doubt_ my own merits on the one hand, and not to be anxious for the preservation of it on the other.--RICHARDSON.

Write _I value her friendship too highly not to...._

One cannot do good to a man whose mouth has been gagged _in order not to hear_ what he desires for his welfare.--_Times._

Grammar suggests that his mouth--or, if indulgent, that he--is not to hear; but the person meant is _one_. Write _one has gagged_ for _has been gagged_.

Germany has, alas! victories enough _not to add_ one of the kind which would have been implied in the retirement of M. Delcassé.--_Times._

It is France, not Germany, that should not add. Write _without France’s adding_.

_In order to obtain_ peace, ordinary battles followed by ordinary victories and ordinary results will only lead to a useless prolongation of the struggle.--_Times._

This is a triumph of inconsequence. Write _If peace is the object, it should be remembered that ordinary...._

It will have occurred to the reader that, while most of the sentences quoted are to be condemned, objection to a few of them might be called pedantic. The fact is that every writer probably breaks the rule often, and escapes notice, other people’s, his own, or both. Different readers, however, will be critical in different degrees; and whoever breaks the rule does so at his own risk; if his offence is noticed, that is hanging evidence against him by itself; if it is not noticed, it is not an offence. Of saying on page 127 _Mistakes are mended sometimes by inserting the subject_, we plead Guilty if we were caught in the act, but otherwise Not Guilty.

=3. Choice between the gerund with preposition and the infinitive.=

It was said in the preliminary section on the Participle and Gerund that _writing_--the verbal noun or gerund--and _to write_--the infinitive--are in some sense synonyms; but phrases were given showing that it is by no means always indifferent which of the two is used. It is a matter of idiom rather than of grammar; but this seems the most convenient place for drawing attention to it. To give satisfactory rules would require many more examples and much more space than can be afforded. But something will be gained if students are convinced (1) that many of the mistakes made give sentences the appearance of having been written by a foreigner or one who is not at home with the literary language; (2) that the mistakes are nearly always on one side, the infinitive being the form that should only be used with caution; (3) that a slight change in arrangement may require a change from infinitive to gerund or vice versa.

_a._ When the infinitive or gerund is attached to a noun, defining or answering the question _what_ (hope, &c.) about it, it is almost always better to use the gerund with of; not quite always, however; for instance, _an intention to return_, usually, and _a tendency to think_ always.

The vain _hope to be understood_ by everybody possessed of a ballot makes us in the United States perhaps guiltier than public men in Great Britain in the use of that monstrous muddled dichotomy ‘capital and labour’.--_Times._

What hope?--That of being understood. Write it so, and treat all the following similarly:

The habitual _necessity to amass_ [of amassing] matter for the weekly sermon, set him noting...--MEREDITH.

We wish to be among the first to felicitate Mr. Whitelaw Reid upon his _opportunity to exercise_ [of exercising] again the distinguished talents which...--_Times._

Men lie twenty times in as many hours in the _hope to propitiate_ [of propitiating] you.--CORELLI.

We left the mound in the twilight, with the _design to return_ [of returning] the next morning.--EMERSON.

The main duties of government were omitted--the _duty to instruct_ [of instructing] the ignorant, _to supply_ [of supplying] the poor with work and good guidance.--EMERSON.

Mr. Hay’s _purpose to preserve or restore_ [of preserving or restoring] the integrity of the administrative entity of China has never been abandoned.--_Times._

My _custom to be dressed_ [of being dressed] for the day, as soon as breakfast is over, ... will make such a step less suspected.--RICHARDSON.

He points out that if Russia accepted the agreement, she would not attain her _object to clear_ [of clearing] the situation, inasmuch as....--_Times._

What accounts for these mistakes is the analogy of forms like: Our design was to return; it is a duty to instruct; man has power to interpret (but _the_ power of interpreting); it is my custom to be dressed.

When, however, the noun thus defined is more or less closely fused into a single idea with the verb that governs it, the infinitive becomes legitimate, though seldom necessary.

The menace to have secreted Solmes, and that other, that I _had thoughts to run away_ with her foolish brother, ... so much terrified the dear creature....--RICHARDSON.

I passed my childhood here, and _had a weakness here to close_ my life.--BEACONSFIELD.

Before ten o’clock in the evening, Gasca _had the satisfaction to see_ the bridge so well secured that....--PRESCOTT.

Almagro’s followers _made as little scruple to appropriate_ to their own use such horses and arms as they could find.--PRESCOTT.

_Had thoughts_ means _was planning_; _had a weakness_ means _desired_; _had the satisfaction_, _was pleased_; _made as little scruple_, _scrupled as little_.

Again, an interval between the noun defined and the infinitive or gerund makes the former more tolerable.

_The necessity_ which has confronted the Tokio War Office, _to enlarge_ their views of the requirements of the situation.--_Times._

Or the infinitive is used to avoid a multiplication of _of_.

He had as much as any man ever had that _gift_ of a great preacher _to make_ the oratorical fervour which persuades himself while it lasts into the abiding conviction of his hearers.--LOWELL.

The pastures of Tartary were still remembered by the tenacious _practice_ of the Norsemen _to eat_ horseflesh at religious feasts.--EMERSON.

If the noun has the indefinite article the infinitive is better sometimes.

But our recognition of it implies a corresponding _duty to make_ the most of such advantages.--_Times._

_A_ duty to make: _the_ duty of making. Compare _power_ and _the power_ above.

The following is probably an adaptation (not to be commended) of _it is necessary for Russia to secure_--_for Russia to secure_ being regarded as a fused infinitive like the Latin accusative and infinitive.

His views on the _necessity_ for Russia _to secure_ the command of the sea....--_Times._

_b._ Though the gerund with _of_ is the usual construction after nouns, they sometimes prefer the gerund with other prepositions also to the infinitive. The gerund with _in_ should be used, for instance, in the following. But euphony operates again in the first.

... the extraordinary _remissness_ of the English commanders _to utilize_ their preponderating strength against the Boers.--_Times._

Lord Kenyon reminded the House of the resistance met with to vaccination, to [of?] the possible _effect_ of the proposal _to increase_ that resistance....--_Times._

I think sculpture and painting have an _effect to teach_ us manners and abolish hurry.--EMERSON.

Such a capitulation would be inconsistent with the position of any Great Power, independently of the _humiliation_ there would be for England and France _to submit_ their agreement for approval and perhaps modification to Germany.--_Times._

The humiliation there would be in submitting; or the humiliation it would be to submit.

_c._ After verbs and adjectives the infinitive is much more common; but no one will use a gerund where an infinitive is required, while many will do the reverse.

But history _accords_ with the Japanese practice _to show_ [in showing] that....--_Times._

We must necessarily appeal to the intuition, and _aim_ much more _to suggest_ than _to describe_ [at suggesting than at describing].--EMERSON.

But they can only highly serve us, when they _aim_ not _to drill_, but _to create_ [at drilling, but at creating].--EMERSON.

So far from _aiming to be_ mistress of Europe, she was rapidly sinking into the almost helpless prey of France.--J. R. GREEN.

This is to avoid _aiming at be_ing; compare the avoidance of double _of_ above.

_Lose no time_, I pray you, _to advise_.--RICHARDSON.

_In advising_ may have been avoided as ambiguous.

Egotism has its root in the cardinal necessity by which each individual _persists to be_ [in being] what he is.--EMERSON.

I do not _despair to see_ [of seeing] a motor public service.--_Guernsey Advertiser._

Their journeymen are far too declamatory, and too much _addicted to substitute_ [substituting] vague and puerile dissertations for solid instruction.--MORLEY.

In the common phrase _addicted to drink_, drink is a noun, not a verb.

His blackguard countrymen, always _averse_, as their descendants are, _to give_ [giving] credit to anybody, for any valuable quality.--BORROW.

Is he _to be blamed_, if he thinks a person would make a wife worth having, _to endeavour_ [for endeavouring] to obtain her?--RICHARDSON.

_d._ If a deferred subject, anticipated by _it_, is to be verbal, it must of course be either the infinitive or a gerund without preposition.

Fortune, who has generally been ready to gratify my inclinations, provided _it_ cost her very little _by so doing_....--BORROW.

SHALL AND WILL

It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous), is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being useless. In apology for the length of these remarks it must be said that the short and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant reader soon loses faith in them from their constant failure to take him right; and the unobservant is the victim of false security.

Roughly speaking, _should_ follows the same rules as _shall_, and _would_ as _will_; in what follows, Sh. may be taken as an abbreviation for _shall_, _should_, and _should have_, and W. for _will_, _would_, and _would have_.

In our usage of the Sh. and W. forms, as seen in principal sentences, there are elements belonging to three systems. The first of these, in which each form retains its full original meaning, and the two are not used to give different persons of the same tense, we shall call the pure system: the other two, both hybrids, will be called, one the coloured-future, the other the plain-future system. In Old English there was no separate future; present and future were one. _Shall_ and _will_ were the presents of two verbs, to which belong also the pasts _should_ and _would_, the conditionals _should_ and _would_, and the past conditionals _should have_ and _would have_. _Shall_ had the meaning of command or obligation, and _will_ of wish. But as commands and wishes are concerned mainly with the future, it was natural that a future tense auxiliary should be developed out of these two verbs. The coloured future results from the application to future time of those forms that were practically useful in the pure system; they consequently retain in the coloured future, with some modifications, the ideas of command and wish proper to the original verbs. The plain future results from the taking of those forms that were practically out of work in the pure system to make what had not before existed, a simple future tense; these have accordingly not retained the ideas of command and wish. Which were the practically useful and which the superfluous forms in the pure system must now be explained.

_Thou shall not steal_ is the type of _shall_ in the pure system. We do not ordinarily issue commands to ourselves; consequently _I shall_ is hardly required; but we often ask for orders, and therefore _shall I?_ is required. The form of the _shall_ present in the pure system is accordingly:

Shall I? You shall. He shall. Shall we? They shall.

As to the past tense, orders cannot be given, but may be asked about, so that, for instance, _What should I do?_ (i. e., What was I to do?) can be done all through interrogatively.

In the conditionals, both statement and question can be done all through. I can give orders to my imaginary, though not to my actual self. I cannot say (as a command) _I shall do it_; but I can say, as a conditional command, _I should do it_.

_I shall_ and _we shall_ are accordingly the superfluous forms of the present _shall_ in the pure system.

Again, with _will_, _I will_ meaning _it is my will_, it is obvious that we can generally state this only of ourselves; we do not know the inside of other people’s minds, but we can ask about it. The present runs, then,

I will. Will you? Will he? We will. Will they?

The past tense can here be done all through, both positively and interrogatively. For though we cannot tell other people’s present will, we can often infer their past will from their actions. So (I was asked, but) _I would not_, and _Why would I do it?_ all through. And similarly in the conditionals, _I would not_ (if I could), &c.

The spare forms supplied by the present _will_, then, are _you will_, _he will_, _they will_; and these, with _I shall_, _we shall_, are ready, when the simple future is required, to construct it out of. We can now give

Rule 1. The Pure System

When Sh. and W. retain the full original meanings of command and wish, each of them is used in all three persons, so far as it is required.

The following examples show most of what we inherit directly from the pure system.

Thou shalt not steal. Not required in first person.

Shall I open the door? Not required in second.

You should not say such things. In all persons.

And shall Trelawny die? Hardly required in second.

Whom should he meet but Jones? (... was it his fate....) In all.

Why should you suspect me? In all.

It should seem so. (It would apparently be incumbent on us to believe) Isolated idiom with third.

I will have my way. Not required in second and third; but see below.

I (he) asked him (me) to do it, but he (I) would not. In all.

I would not have done it for the world. In all.

I would be told to wait a while (Habitual). In all.

Will you come with me? Not required in first.

I would I were dead. Not required in second and third.

He will bite his nails, whatever I say. In all.

He will often stand on his head. In all.

You will still be talking (i. e., you always are). Not required in first.

A coat will last two years with care.

It will be noticed that the last four forms are among those that were omitted as not required by the pure system. _Will_ would rarely be required in second and third person statements, but would of course be possible in favourable circumstances, as in describing habitual action, where the will of another may be inferred from past experience. The last of all is a natural extension of the idiom even to things that have no will. All these ‘habitual’ uses are quite different from _I will have my way_; and though _you will have your way_ is possible, it always has the ‘habitual’ meaning, which _I will have my way_ is usually without.

All the forms in the above list, and others like them, have three peculiarities--that they are not practically futures as distinguished from presents; that they use Sh. for all persons, or W. for all persons, if the idea is appropriate to all persons; and that the ideas are simply, or with very little extension, those of command or obligation and wish.

* * * * *

The coloured-future system is so called because, while the future sense is more distinct, it is still coloured with the speaker’s mood; command and wish receive extensions and include promise, permission, menace, consent, assurance, intention, refusal, offer, &c.; and the forms used are invariably those--from both Sh. and W.--that we called the practically useful ones in the pure system. That is, we have always

I will, shall I? You shall, will you? He shall, will he? We will, shall we? They shall, will they?

And the conditionals, _should_ and _would_, _should have_ and _would have_, are used with exactly the same variations. It will be borne in mind, however, that no clear line of division can be drawn between the pure system and the coloured-future system, since the latter is developed naturally (whereas the plain-future system is rather developed artificially) out of the former. And especially the questions of the coloured future are simply those of the pure system without any sort of modification.

Rule 2. The Coloured-Future System

In future and conditional statements that include (without the use of special words for the purpose) an expression of the speaker’s (not necessarily of the subject’s) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, &c.--in such sentences the first person has W., the second and third persons Sh.

I will tell you presently. My promise.

You shall repent it before long. My menace.

He shall not have any. My refusal.

We would go if we could. Our conditional intention.

You should do it if we could make you. Our conditional command.

They should have had it if they had asked. My conditional consent.

The only questions possible here are the asking for orders and the requests already disposed of under Rule 1.

Observe that _I would like_ (which is not English) is not justified by this rule, because the speaker’s mood is expressed by _like_, and does not need double expression; it ought to be _I should like_, under Rule 3.

Observe also that _I sha’n’t_, _You will go to your room and stay there_, are only apparent exceptions, which will be explained under Rule 3.

The archaic literary forms _You shall find_, _A rogue shall often pass for an honest man_, though now affected and pretentious, are grammatically defensible. The speaker asks us to take the fact on his personal assurance.

The forms little required in the pure system, and therefore ready to hand for making the new plain future, were _I_, and _we_, _shall_; _you_, _he_, and _they_, _will_. These accordingly constitute the plain future, and the corresponding forms of the plain conditional are used analogously. Questions follow the same rule, with one very important exception, which will be given a separate rule (4). We now give

Rule 3. The Plain-Future System

In plain statements about the future, and in the principal clause, result, or apodosis, of plain conditional sentences (whether the subordinate clause, condition, or _if_-clause, is expressed or not), the first person has Sh., the second and third persons W. Questions conform, except those of the second person, for which see Rule 4.

I shall, you will, die some day.

Shall I, will they, be here to-morrow?

We should, he would, have consented if you had asked.

Should we, would he, have missed you if you had been there?

I should, you would, like a bathe.

Should I, would he, like it myself, himself?