The Grammar of English Grammars Part 106

"In Christian hearts O for a pagan zeal!

A needful, but opprobrious _prayer!_"--_Young_, N. ix, l. 995.

"Great standing _miracle_, that Heav'n a.s.sign'd Its only thinking thing this turn of mind."--_Pope_.

OBS. 13.--A _distributive term_ in the singular number, is frequently construed in apposition with a comprehensive plural; as, "_They_ reap vanity, _every one_ with his neighbour."--_Bible_. "Go _ye every man_ unto his city."--_Ibid._ So likewise with two or more singular nouns which are taken conjointly; as, "The _Son and Spirit_ have _each_ his proper office."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 163. And sometimes a _plural_ word is emphatically put after a series of particulars comprehended under it; as, "Ambition, interest, glory, _all_ concurred."--_Letters on Chivalry_, p.

11. "Royalists, republicans, churchmen, sectaries, courtiers, patriots, _all parties_ concurred in the illusion."--_Hume's History_, Vol. viii, p.

73. The foregoing examples are plain, but similar expressions sometimes require care, lest the distributive or collective term be so placed that its construction and meaning may be misapprehended. Examples: "We have _turned every one_ to his own way."--_Isaiah_, liii, 6. Better: "_We have every one_ turned to his own way." "For in many things we _offend all_."--_James_, iii, 2. Better: "For in many things _we all_ offend." The latter readings doubtless convey the _true sense_ of these texts. To the relation of apposition, it may be proper also to refer the construction of a singular noun taken in a distributive sense and repeated after _by_ to denote order; as, "_They_ went out _one_ by one."--_Bible_. "Our whole _company, man_ by man, ventured in."--_Goldsmith_. "To examine a _book, page_ by page; to search a _place, house_ by house."--_Ward's Gram._, p.

106. So too, perhaps, when the parts of a thing explain the whole; as,

"But those that sleep, and think not on their sins, Pinch _them, arms, legs, backs, shoulders, sides_, and _shins_."

--_Shak_.

OBS. 14.--To express a reciprocal action or relation, the p.r.o.nominal adjectives _each other_ and _one an other_ are employed: as, "They love _each other_;"--"They love _one an other_." The words, separately considered, are singular; but, taken together, they imply plurality; and they can be properly construed only after plurals, or singulars taken conjointly. _Each other_ is usually applied to two persons or things; and _one an other_, to more than two. The impropriety of applying them otherwise, is noticed elsewhere; (see, in Part II, Obs. 15th, on the Cla.s.ses of Adjectives;) so that we have here to examine only their relations of case. The terms, though reciprocal and closely united, are seldom or never in the same construction. If such expressions be a.n.a.lyzed, _each_ and _one_ will generally appear to be in the nominative case, and _other_ in the objective; as, "They love _each other_;" i. e. _each_ loves _the other_. "They love _one an other_;" i. e. any or every _one_ loves any or every _other_. _Each_ and _one_ (--if the words be taken as cases, and not adjectively--) are properly in agreement or apposition with _they_, and _other_ is governed by the verb. The terms, however, admit of other constructions; as, "Be ye helpers _one_ of an _other_."--_Bible_. Here _one_ is in apposition with _ye_, and _other_ is governed by _of_. "Ye are _one_ an _other's_ joy."--_Ib._ Here _one_ is in apposition with _ye_, and _other's_ is in the possessive case, being governed by _joy_. "Love will make you _one_ an _other's_ joy." Here _one_ is in the objective case, being in apposition with _you_, and _other's_ is governed as before.

"_Men's_ confidence in _one an other_;"--"_Their_ dependence _one_ upon _an other_." Here the word _one_ appears to be in apposition with the possessive going before; for it has already been shown, that words standing in that relation _never take the possessive sign_. But if its location after the preposition must make it objective, the whole object is the complex term, "_one an other_." "Grudge not _one_ against _an other_."--_James_, v, 9. "Ne vous plaignez point _les uns des autres_."--_French Bible_. "Ne suspirate _alius_ adversus _alium_."--_Beza_. "Ne ingemiscite adversus _alii alios."--Leusden_.

"[Greek: Mae stenazete kat hallaelon]."--_Greek New Testament_.

OBS. 15.--The construction of the Latin terms _alius alium, alii alios_, &c., with that of the French _l'un l'autre, l'un de l'autre_, &c., appears, at first view, sufficiently to confirm the doctrine of the preceding observation; but, besides the frequent use, in Latin and Greek, of a reciprocal adverb to express the meaning of one an other or each other, there are, from each of these languages, some a.n.a.logical arguments for taking the English terms together as compounds. The most common term in Greek for _one an other_, ([Greek: Hallaelon], dat. [Greek: hallaelois, ais, ois], acc. [Greek: hallaelous]: ab [Greek: hallos], _alius_,) is a single derivative word, the case of which is known by its termination; and _each other_ is sometimes expressed in Latin by a compound: as, "Et osculantes se _alterutrum_, fleverunt pariter."--_Vulgate_. That is: "And kissing _each other_, they wept together." As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: "And they kissed _one an other_, and wept _one_ with _an other_"--_1 Sam._, xx, 41.

_Alter-utrum_ is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like _each-other_; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to pa.r.s.e _each other_ and _one an other_ otherwise than as compounds: as, "He only recommended this, and not the washing of _one another's_ feet."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 143.

"The Temple late two brother sergeants saw, Who deem'd _each other oracles_ of law."--_Pope_, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]

OBS. 16.--The _common_ and the _proper_ name of an object are very often a.s.sociated, and put in apposition; as, "_The river Thames_,"--"_The ship Albion_,"--"_The poet Cowper_"--"_Lake Erie_,"--"_Cape May_"--"_Mount Atlas_." But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by _of_; as, "The city _of_ New York,"--"The land _of_ Canaan,"--"The island _of_ Cuba,"--"The peninsula _of_ Yucatan." Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, "That the _city Sepphoris_ should be subordinate to the _city Tiberias_."--_Life of Josephus_, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition _of_ is at least needless: "The law delighteth herself in the number _of_ twelve; and the number _of_ twelve is much respected in holy writ."--_c.o.ke, on Juries_.

Two or three late grammarians, supposing _of_ always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, "The city _of_ London, the city _of_ New Haven, the month _of_ March, the islands _of_ Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns _of_ Exeter and Dover," than to say, "King _of_ Solomon, t.i.tus _of_ the Roman Emperor, Paul _of_ the apostle, or, Cicero _of_ the orator."--See _Barrett's Gram._, p. 101; _Emmons's_, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar.

Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, "in the city _of_ New Haven."--_Gram._, p. 19.

OBS. 17.--When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the pa.s.sive: as, "They named the _child John_;"--"The child was named _John_."--"They elected _him president_;"--"He was elected _president_." After the active verb, the acquired name must be pa.r.s.ed by Rule 3d; after the pa.s.sive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the p.r.o.nominal adjective _some_, or the noun _men_ understood after it, is the direct object of the verb _gave_, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: "And he gave _some, apostles_; and _some, prophets_; and _some, evangelists_; and _some, pastors_ and _teachers_"--_Ephesians_, iv, 11. That is, "He _bestowed some_ [men] as _apostles_; and _some_ as _prophets_; and _some_ as _evangelists_; and _some_ as _pastors_ and _teachers_." The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take _some_ to be either a _dative case_, meaning _to some persons_, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with _some_, or _some men_, in what the Latins call the _accusative, case_. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of _as_, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.

OBS. 18.--Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: "The _Franks, a people_ of Germany."--_W. Allen's Gram._ "The Kenite _tribe_, the _descendants_ of Hobab."--_Milman's Hist. of the Jews_. "But how can _you_ a _soul_, still either hunger or thirst?"--_Lucian's Dialogues_, p. 14. "Who seized the wife of _me_ his _host_, and fled."--_Ib._, p. 16.

"Thy gloomy _grandeurs_ (Nature's most august.

Inspiring _aspect_!) claim a grateful verse."--_Young_, N. ix, l. 566.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE III.

ERRORS OF WORDS IN APPOSITION.

"Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou."--_Gen._, x.x.xi, 44.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the p.r.o.nouns I and thou, of the nominative case, are here put in apposition with the preceding p.r.o.noun _us_, which is objective. But, according to Rule 3d, "A noun or a personal p.r.o.noun, used to explain a preceding noun or p.r.o.noun, is put, by apposition, in the same case." Therefore, _I_ and _thou_ should be _thee_ and _me_; (the first person, in our idiom, being usually put last;) thus, "Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, thee and me."]

"Now, therefore, come thou, we will make a covenant, thee and me."--_Variation of Gen._ "The word came not to Esau, the hunter, that stayed not at home; but to Jacob, the plain man, he that dwelt in tents."--_Wm. Penn_. "Not to every man, but to the man of G.o.d, (i. e.) he that is led by the spirit of G.o.d."--_Barclays Works_, i, 266. "For, admitting G.o.d to be a creditor, or he to whom the debt should be paid, and Christ he that satisfies or pays it on behalf of man the debtor, this question will arise, whether he paid that debt as G.o.d, or man, or both?"--_Wm. Penn._ "This Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly Man, the Emmanuel, G.o.d with us, we own and believe in: he whom the high priests raged against," &c.--_George Fox_. "Christ, and Him crucified, was the Alpha and Omega of all his addresses, the fountain and foundation of his hope and trust."--_Experience of Paul_, p. 399. "'Christ and Him crucified'

is the head, and only head, of the church."--_Denison's Sermon_. "But if 'Christ and Him crucified' are the burden of the ministry, such disastrous results are all avoided."--_Ib._ "He never let fall the least intimation, that himself, or any other person, whomsoever, was the object of worship."--_Hannah Adams's View_, p. 250. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."--_1 Tim._, v, 17. "Our Shepherd, him who is styled King of saints, will a.s.suredly give his saints the victory."--_Sermon_. "It may seem odd to talk of _we subscribers_"--_Fowlers True Eng. Gram._, p. 20.

"And they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; for I will pour their wickedness upon them."--_Jeremiah_, xiv, 16. "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants."--_Philippians_, ii, 25.

"Amidst the tumult of the routed train, The sons of false Antimachus were slain; He, who for bribes his faithless counsels sold, And voted Helen's stay for Paris' gold."

--_Pope, Iliad_, B. xi. l. 161.

"See the vile King his iron sceptre bear-- His only praise attends the pious Heir; He, in whose soul the virtues all conspire, The best good son, from the worst wicked sire."

--DR. LOWTH: _Union Poems_, p. 19.

"Then from thy lips poured forth a joyful song To thy Redeemer!--yea, it poured along In most melodious energy of praise, To G.o.d, the Saviour, he of ancient days."

--_Arm Chair_, p. 15.

RULE IV.--POSSESSIVES.

A Noun or a p.r.o.noun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed: as, "_G.o.d's_ mercy prolongs _man's_ life."--_Allen_.

"_Theirs_ is the vanity, the learning _thine_; Touched by _thy_ hand, again _Rome's_ glories shine."--_Pope_.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV.

OBS. 1.--Though the _ordinary_ syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case.

That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny. But how many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might be plausibly exhibited in that character. Two of these would concern only the pa.r.s.er; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important. The other involves the approval or reprehension of a great mult.i.tude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; _first_, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; _secondly_, the government of the possessive case after _is, was_, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; _thirdly_, the government of the possessive by a participle, as such--that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle.

OBS. 2.--The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, "For _David_ my _servant's_ sake,") might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs the one, virtually governs the other. And if the case of any noun or p.r.o.noun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third. If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians have differed in the same way before.

Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such _perhaps_ is the following: "At Mr. Smith's [_who is_] the bookseller."--See _Dr.

Priestley's Gram._, p. 71.

OBS. 3.--In all our Latin grammars, the verb _sum, fui, esse_, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to _signify_ possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, "_Est regis_;"--"It is the king's."--"_Hominis est errare_;"--"It is man's to err."--"_Pecus est Melibœi_;"--"The flock is Meliboeus's." And sometimes, with like import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, "_Ego_ [sum] _dilecto meo, et dilectus meus_ [est]

_mihi_."--_Vulgate_. "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."--_Solomon's Song_, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from a.n.a.logy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after _sum_ or _est_, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some _noun understood_; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word _beloved's_ or _mine_ is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, "There shall nothing die of all that is the _children's_ of Israel."--_Exod._, ix, 4. The Latin here is, "Ut nihil omnino pereat ex his _quae pertinent ad_ filios Israel."--_Vulgate_. That is,--"of all those _which belong to_ the children of Israel."

"For thou art _Freedom's_ now--and _Fame's_, One of the few, the immortal names, That were not born to die."--HALLECK: _Marco Bozzaris_.

OBS. 4.--Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an _adjunct_ and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,--that is, with an actual separation from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal p.r.o.nouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the p.r.o.noun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, "All _mine_ are _thine_, and _thine_ are _mine_."--_John_, xvii, 10. For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a p.r.o.noun to be something more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, "For all things are _yours_; and ye are _Christ's_; and Christ is _G.o.d's_."--_1 Cor._, iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (_be_,) _might_ be pa.r.s.ed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose "_theirs_" to be governed by "_vanity_," and "_thine_" by "_learning_," these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a _p.r.o.noun_ happens to be the nominative; as, "Therefore glorify G.o.d in your body, and in your spirit, _which are G.o.d's_"--_1 Cor._, vi, 20. Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, "_If ye be Christ's_, then are ye Abraham's seed."--_Gal._, iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning to be, "_If ye be Christ's seed_, or _children_." But a truer version of the text would be, "If ye _are of Christ_, then are ye Abraham's seed."--"Que si vous _etes a Christ_, vous etes done la posterite d'Abraham."--_French Bible_.

OBS. 5.--Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which const.i.tutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood _substantively_--that is, to "the _name_ of the thing possessed." Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a _participle_, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen. Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray's code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an _article_ before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the _p.r.o.noun_ and participle: as, "Much depends on _their observing of_ the rule, and error will be the consequence of _their neglecting of_ it;" in stead of, "_their observing the rule_," and "_their neglecting it_." And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the _noun_ and participle; as if the error were still more glaring, to make an active participle govern a possessive _noun_; saying, "We shall perceive this _more clearly_, if we subst.i.tute a noun for the p.r.o.noun: as, 'Much depends upon _Tyro's observing of_ the rule,' &c.; which is the same as, 'Much depends on Tyro's _observance_ of the rule.' But, as this construction sounds rather _harshly_, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: 'Much depends on the _rule's being observed_; and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_? or--'_on observing the rule_; and--_of neglecting it_.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 193; _Ingersoll's_, 199; and others.

OBS. 6.--Here it is a.s.sumed, that "_their observing the rule_," or "_Tyro's observing the rule_," is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself.

The last form offered, "_on observing the rule_," &c., is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a subst.i.tute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient. It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the participle undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent of the action, or the subject of the being or pa.s.sion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idiom of our language as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See _Smith's New Grammar_, pp. 152 and 162; _Comly's Gram._, 91 and 108; _Ingersoll's_, 180 and 199.

OBS. 7.--Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions. The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says: "There is only one other observation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. 'Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the _rule's being observed_; and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_. For here _is_ a noun _and_ a p.r.o.noun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without other noun to govern it: for _being observed_, and _being neglected_, are not nouns: nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition _of_ before the noun or p.r.o.noun.'[346]

For my part," continues Campbell, "notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circ.u.mlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.

OBS. 8.--Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the pa.s.sive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming "one compound noun." I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case. I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove. In view of the two examples, "Much depends upon the _rule's being observed_," and, "Much depends upon _their observing of the rule_," he says: "Now, although I allow both _the_ modes of expression to be good, I think the first _simpler and better_ than the second." Then, denying all faults, he proceeds: "Let us consider whether the former be liable to _any objections_, which do not equally affect the latter." But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lowth, which indeed he sufficiently refutes. Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded. In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in meaning; hence the preference suggested by this critic and others, is absurd. Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer. If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure: as, "Much depends on _an observance_ of the rule."--"Much depends on _their observance_ of the rule." Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, _vice versa_: that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other.[347]

OBS. 9.--From Dr. Campbell's commendation of Lowth, as having "given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,"--that is, between the participial noun and the participle,--it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: "Much will depend on _your pupil's composing_, but more on _his reading_ frequently."--_Philos. of Rhet._, p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which p.r.o.nounce this sentence to be "correct and proper." But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb "_frequently_" qualify the verb "_will depend_" expressed in the sentence?

or "_will depend_" understood after _more_? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of "_reading_?" or the action of "_composing_?" or both? or neither? But _composing_ and _reading_, if they are mere _nouns_, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives.

Besides, _composing_, as a participle, is commonly _transitive_; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon _of_, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, "Much will depend on your _pupil's composing of themes_; but more, on _his frequent reading_." This may not be the author's meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of "_experiment_;" and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher. But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, "Much will depend on _an author's using_, but more on _his learning_ frequently." Yet is it commended as a _model_, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C.

Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.

OBS. 10.--That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form "_one name_" or "_substantive phrase_," and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author. For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar it stands thus: "When an _entire clause_ of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circ.u.mstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case.

Thus, instead of saying, _What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train_, i. e. _what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train_, we may say, _What is the meaning of this_ lady's _holding up her train_; just as we say, _What is the meaning of this lady's dress_, &c. So we may either say, _I remember_ it being _reckoned a great exploit_; or, perhaps more elegantly, _I remember_ its being _reckoned_, &c."--_Priestley's Gram._, p.

69. Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this pa.s.sage, that is either conceived or worded properly. Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss pa.s.ses uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction. His only note on this point,--a note about the "_horse running to-day_," and the "_horse's running_ to-day,"--I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.