The Grammar of English Grammars Part 109

A Noun or a p.r.o.noun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case: as, "I found _her_ a.s.sisting _him_"--"Having finished the _work_, I submit _it_."

"Preventing _fame_, misfortune lends him _wings_, And Pompey's self his own sad _story_ brings."

--_Rowe's Lucan_, B. viii, l. 66.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE V.

OBS. 1.--To this rule there are no exceptions; but to the old one adopted by Murray and others, "Active verbs govern the objective case," there are more than any writer will ever think it worth his while to enumerate. In point of brevity, the latter has the advantage, but in nothing else; for, as a general rule for NOUNS AND p.r.o.nOUNS, this old brief a.s.sertion is very defective; and, as a rule for "THE SYNTAX OF VERBS," under which head it has been oftener ranked, it is entirely useless and inapplicable. As there are four different constructions to which the nominative case is liable, so there are four in which the objective may be found; and two of these are common to both; namely, _apposition_, and _sameness of_ case. Every objective is governed by some _verb_ or _participle_, according to Rule 5th, or by some _preposition_, according to Rule 7th; except such as are put in _apposition_ with others, according to Rule 3d, or after an infinitive or a participle _not transitive_, according to Rule 6th: as, "Mistaking _one_ for the _other_, they took _him_, a st.u.r.dy _fellow_, called _Red Billy_, to be _me_." Here is every construction which the objective case can have; except, perhaps, that in which, as an expression of time, place, measure, or manner, it is taken after the fashion of an _adverb_, the governing preposition being suppressed, or, as some say, no governing word being needed. Of this exception, the following quotations may serve for examples: "It holds on by a single b.u.t.ton round my neck, _cloak-fashion_"--EDGEWORTH'S _Castle Rackrent_. p. 17. A man quite at leisure to pa.r.s.e all his words, would have said, "_in the fashion of a cloak_." Again: "He does not care the _rind of a lemon_ for her all the while."--_Ib._, p. 108. "We turn our eyes _this way or that way_."--_Webster's Philos. Gram._, p. 172; _Frazee's Gram._, 157. Among his instances of "_the objective case restrictive_," or of the noun "used in the objective, without a governing word," Dr. Bullions gives this: "Let us go _home_" But, according to the better opinion of Worcester, _home_ is here an _adverb_, and not a noun. See Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.

OBS. 2.--The objective case _generally follows_ the governing word: as, "And Joseph knew his _brethren_, but they knew not him"--_Gen._, xlii, 8.

But when it is emphatic, it often precedes the nominative; as, "_Me_ he restored to mine office, and _him_ he hanged."--_Gen._, xli, 13. "_John_ have I beheaded."--_Luke_, ix, 9. "But _me_ ye have not always."--_Matt._, xxvi, 11. "_Him_ walking on a sunny hill he found."--_Milton_. In poetry, the objective is sometimes placed between the nominative and the verb; as,

"His daring foe securely _him_ defied."--_Milton_.

"Much he the _place_ admired, the person more."--_Id._

"The broom its yellow _leaf_ shed."--_Langhorne_.

If the nominative be a p.r.o.noun which cannot be mistaken for an objective, the words may possibly change places; as, "_Silver_ and _gold_ have I none."--_Acts_, iii, 6. "Created _thing_ nought valued _he_ nor shunn'd."--_Milton_, B. ii, l. 679. But such a transposition of _two nouns_ can scarcely fail to render the meaning doubtful or obscure; as,

"This _pow'r_ has praise, that virtue scarce can warm, Till fame supplies the universal charm."--_Dr. Johnson_.

A relative or an interrogative p.r.o.noun is commonly placed at the head of its clause, and of course it precedes the verb which governs it; as, "I am Jesus, _whom_ thou persecutest."--_Acts_, ix, 5. "_Which_ of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?"--_Ib._, vii, 52.

"Before their Clauses plac'd, by settled use, The Relatives these Clauses introduce."--_Ward's Gram._, p. 86.

OBS. 3.--Every active-transitive verb or participle has some _noun_ or _p.r.o.noun_ for its object, or some _p.r.o.nominal adjective_ which a.s.sumes the relation of the objective case. Though verbs are often followed by the infinitive mood, or a dependent clause, forming a part of the logical predicate; yet these terms, being commonly introduced by a connecting particle, do not form _such an object_ as is contemplated in our definition of a transitive verb. Its government of the _objective_, is the only proper criterion of this sort of verb. If, in the sentence, "Boys _love_ to play,"

the former verb is transitive, as several respectable grammarians affirm; why not also in a thousand others; as, "Boys _like_ to play;"--"Boys _delight_ to play;"--"Boys _long_ to play;"--"The boys _seem_ to play;"--"The boys _cease_ to play;"--"The boys _ought_ to play;"--"The boys _go out_ to play;"--"The boys _are gone out_ to play;"--"The boys _are allowed_ to play;" and the like? The construction in all is precisely the same, and the infinitive may follow one kind of verb just as well as an other. How then can the mere addition of this mood make _any_ verb transitive? or where, on such a principle, can the line of distinction for transitive verbs be drawn? The infinitive, _in fact_, is governed by the preposition _to_; and the preceding verb, if it has no other object, is intransitive. It must, however, be confessed that some verbs which thus take the infinitive after them, cannot otherwise be intransitive; as, "A great mind _disdains to hold_ any thing by courtesy."--_Johnson's Life of Swift_. "They _require to be distinguished_ by a comma."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 272.

OBS. 4.--A transitive verb, as I have elsewhere shown, may both govern the objective case, and be followed by an infinitive also; as, "_What_ have I _to do_ with thee?"--_John_, ii, 4. This question, as one would naturally take it, implies, "I have _nothing to do_ with thee;" and, by a.n.a.logy, _what_ is governed by _have_, and not by _do_; so that the latter verb, though not commonly intransitive, appears to be so here. Indeed the infinitive mood is often used without an objective, when every other part of the same verb would require one. Maunder's rule is, "Transitive verbs and participles govern _either_ the objective case _or_ the infinitive _mode_."--_Comprehensive Gram._, p. 14. Murray teaches, not only that, "The _infinitive mood_ does the office of a substantive in the objective case; as, 'Boys love _to play_;'" but that, "The _participle_ with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase _in the objective case_, governed by the preposition or verb; as, 'He studied to avoid _expressing himself too severely_.'"--See his _Octavo Gram._, pp. 184 and 194. And again: "_Part of a sentence_, as well as a noun or p.r.o.noun, may be said to be _in the objective case_, or to be put objectively, _governed_ by the active verb; as, 'We sometimes see _virtue in distress_, but we should consider _how great will be her ultimate reward_.' Sentences or phrases under this circ.u.mstance, may be termed _objective sentences_ or _phrases_."--_Ib._, p.

180.

OBS. 5.--If we admit that sentences, parts of sentences, infinitives, participles with their adjuncts, and other phrases, as well as nouns and p.r.o.nouns, may be _"in the objective case;"_ it will be no easy matter, either to define this case, or to determine what words do, or do not, govern it.[353] The construction of infinitives and participles will be noticed hereafter. But on one of Murray's examples, I would here observe, that the direct use of the infinitive for an objective noun is a manifest _Grecism_; as, "For to will is present with me; but _to perform_ that which is good, I find not."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 184. That is, "_the performance of_ that which is good, I find not." Or perhaps we may supply a noun after the verb, and take this text to mean, "But to perform that which is good, I find not _the ability_." Our Bible has it, "But _how_ to perform that which is good. I find not;" as if _the manner_ in which he might do good, was what the apostle found not: but Murray cites it differently, omitting the word _how_, as we see above. All active verbs to which something is subjoined by _when, where, whence, how_, or _why_, must be accounted intransitive, unless we suppose them to govern such nouns of time, place, degree, manner, or cause, as correspond to these connectives; as, "I _know why_ she blushed." Here we might supply the noun _reason_, as, "I know the _reason why_ she blushed;" but the word is needless, and I should rather pa.r.s.e _know_ as being intransitive. As for "_virtue in distress_," if this is an "_objective phrase_," and not to be a.n.a.lyzed, we have millions of the same sort; but, if one should say, "_Virtue in distress_ excites pity," the same phrase would demonstrate the absurdity of Murray's doctrine, because the two nouns here take _two different cases_.

OBS. 6.--The word _that_, which is often employed to introduce a dependent clause, is, by some grammarians, considered as a _p.r.o.noun_, representing the clause which follows it; as, "I know _that_ Messias cometh."--_John_, iv, 25. This text they would explain to mean, "_Messias cometh_, I know _that_;" and their opinion seems to be warranted both by the origin and by the usual import of the particle. But, in conformity to general custom, and to his own views of the practical purposes of grammatical a.n.a.lysis, the author has ranked it with the conjunctions. And he thinks it better, to call those verbs intransitive, which are followed by _that_ and a dependent clause, than to supply the very frequent ellipses which the other explanation supposes. To explain it as a conjunction, connecting an active-transitive verb and its object, as several respectable grammarians do, appears to involve some inconsistency. If _that_ is a conjunction, it connects what precedes and what follows; but a transitive verb should exercise a direct government, without the intervention of a conjunction. On the other hand, the word _that_ has not, in any such sentence, the inherent nature of a p.r.o.noun. The transposition above, makes it only a _p.r.o.nominal adjective_; as, "Messias cometh, I know _that fact_." And in many instances such a solution is impracticable; as, "The people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, _that_ he should not depart from them."--_Luke_, iv, 42. Here, to prove _that_ to be a p.r.o.noun, the disciples of Tooke and Webster must resort to more than one imaginary ellipsis, and to such inversion as will scarcely leave the sense in sight.

OBS. 7.--In some instances the action of a transitive verb gives to its direct object an additional name, which is also in the objective case, the two words being in apposition; as, "Thy saints proclaim _thee king_."--_Cowper_. "And G.o.d called the _firmament Heaven_."--_Bible_.

"Ordering them to make _themselves masters_ of a certain steep eminence."--_Rollin_, ii, 67. And, in such a construction, the direct object is sometimes placed before the verb; though the name which results from the action, cannot be so placed: as, "And _Simon_ he surnamed _Peter_."--_Mark_, iii, 15. "_Him_ that overcometh will I make a _pillar_ in the temple of my G.o.d."--_Rev._, iii, 12. Some grammarians seem not to have considered this phraseology as coming within the rule of apposition.

Thus Webster: "We have some verbs which govern two words in the objective case; as,

'Did I request thee, maker, from my clay To mold _me man_?'--_Milton_, 10, 744.

'G.o.d seems to have made _him what_ he was.'--_Life of Cowper_."[354]--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 170. _Improved Gram._, p. 120.

See also _Weld's Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 154; "Abridged Ed.," p. 119; and _Fowler's E. Gram._, --450. So Murray: "Some of our verbs _appear to govern two words_ in the objective case; as, 'The Author of my being formed _me man_.'--'They desired me to call _them brethren_.'--'He seems to have made _him what_ he was.' "--_Octavo Gram._, p. 183. Yet this latter writer says, that in the sentence, "They appointed _me executor_," and others like it,"

the verb _to be_ is _understood_."--_Ib._, p. 182. These then, according to his own showing, are instances of apposition; but I p.r.o.nounce then such, without either confounding same cases with apposition, or making the latter a species of ellipsis. See Obs. 1st and 2d, under Rule 3d.

OBS. 8.--In general, if not always, when a verb is followed by two objectives which are neither in apposition nor connected by a conjunction, one of them is governed by a preposition understood; as, "I paid [to] _him_ the _money_"--"They offered [to] _me_ a _seat_"--"He asked [of] _them_ the _question_"--"I yielded, and unlock'd [to] _her_ all my _heart_."--_Milton_. In expressing such sentences pa.s.sively, the object of the preposition is sometimes erroneously a.s.sumed for the nominative; as, "_He_ was paid _the money_," in stead of, "The _money_ was paid [to]

_him_."--"_I_ was offered _a seat_," in stead of, "_A seat_ was offered [to] _me_." This kind of error is censured by Murray more than once, and yet he himself has, in very many instances, fallen into it. His first criticism on it, is in the following words: "We sometimes meet with such expressions as these: 'They were asked a question;' 'They were offered a pardon;' 'He hath been left a great estate by his father.' In these _phrases_, verbs pa.s.sive are made to govern the objective case. This license _is not to be approved_. The expressions should be: 'A question was put to them;' 'A pardon was offered to them;' 'His father left him a great estate.'"--_L. Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 183. See Obs. 12, below.

OBS. 9.--In the Latin syntax, verbs of _asking_ and _teaching_ are said to govern two accusatives; as, "_Posce Deum veniam_, Beg pardon of G.o.d."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 207. "_Docuit me grammaticam_, He taught me grammar."--_Grant, Adam, and others_. And again: "When a verb in the active voice governs two cases, in the pa.s.sive it retains the latter case; as, _Doceor grammaticam_, I am taught grammar."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 177.

These writers however suggest, that in reality the _latter_ accusative is governed, not by the verb, but by a preposition understood. "'_Poscere deos veniam_ is 'to ask the G.o.ds _for_ pardon.'"--_Barnes's Philological Gram._, p. 116. In general the English idiom _does not coincide_ with what occurs in Latin under these rules. We commonly insert a preposition to govern one or the other of the terms. But we sometimes leave to the verb the objective of the person, and sometimes that of the thing; and after the two verbs _ask_ and _teach_, we sometimes _seem_ to leave both: as, "When thou dost _ask me blessing_, I'll kneel down, and _ask of thee forgiveness_."-- _Shakspeare_. "In long journeys, _ask_ your _master leave_ to give ale to the horses."--_Swift_. "And he _asked them of_ their _welfare_."--_Gen._, xliii, 27. "They _asked of him_ the parable."--_Mark_, iv, 10.

("_Interrogarunt eum de parabola_."--_Beza_.) "And asking _them questions_"--_Luke_, ii, 46. "But _teach them_ thy _sons_."--_Deut._, iv, 9. "_Teach them_ diligently _unto_ thy _children_"--_Ib._, vi, 7. '"Ye shall _teach them_ your _children_."--_Ib._, xi, 19. "Shall any _teach G.o.d knowledge_?"--_Job_, xxi, 22. "I will _teach you_ the _fear_ of the Lord."--_Psal_, x.x.xiv, 11. "He will _teach us of_ his ways."--_Isaiah_, ii, 3; _Micah_, iv, 2. "Let him that _is taught in_ the _word_, communicate."--_Gal._, vi, 6.

OBS. 10.--After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or p.r.o.noun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be pa.r.s.ed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction.

Consequently I do not admit, that any pa.s.sive verb can properly govern an objective noun or p.r.o.noun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, "Give _him bread_ to eat."--"Bread shall be given _him_"--_Bible_. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a "preposition understood;" and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, "Give [_to_] truth and virtue the _same arms which_ you give [_to_] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 235. The questionable expression, "_Ask me blessing_," if interpreted a.n.a.logically, must mean, "Ask _for_ me _a_ blessing," which is more correct and explicit; or, if _me_ be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, "Ask _of_ me _a_ blessing," or, "Ask _my_ blessing."

So, "Ask your _master leave_," ought rather to be, "Ask _of_ your master leave," "Ask your master _for_ leave," or, "Ask your _master's_ leave." The example from Mark ought to be, "They asked _him about_ the parable." Again, the elliptical sentence, "Teach them thy sons," is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, "Teach them _to_ thy sons." _To teach_ is to tell things _to_ persons, or to instruct persons _in_ things; _to ask_ is to request or demand things _of_ or _from_ persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons _about_ or _for_ things.

These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more a.n.a.logical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects.

OBS. 11.--Some writers erroneously allow pa.s.sive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr.

Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the pa.s.sive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you _to_ this or _of_ this, '_Persuadeo hoc tibi_. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the pa.s.sive verb. We must, therefore, say, _Hoc tibi persuadetur_, 'You are persuaded _of_ this;' not, _Tu persuaderis_. 'He trusted me _with_ this affair,' or 'He believed me _in_ this,' _Hoc mihi credidit_.--Pa.s.sively, _Hoc mihi creditum est_. 'I told you this,' _Hoc tibi dixi_. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' _Hoc tibi dictum est_; not, _Tu dictus es_." [No, surely: for, '_Tu dictus es_,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'--and, if followed by any case, it must be the _nominative_.'] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, _Hoc tibi dictum est_, means not only 'This was told _to_ you,' but 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS.' _Liber mihi apatre promissus est_, means both 'A book was promised (_to_) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' _Is primum rogatua est sententiam_, 'He was first asked _for_ his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked _of_ him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the pa.s.sive voice." See _Grants Latin Gram._, p. 210.

OBS. 12.--Murray's _second_ censure upon pa.s.sive government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the pa.s.sive voice the regimen of an active verb, _are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated_. 'The bishops and abbots _were allowed their seats_ in the house of lords.'

'Thrasea _was forbidden the presence_ of the emperor.' 'He _was shown_ that very _story_ in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: 'The bishops and abbots were allowed _to have_ (or _to take_) their seats in the house of lords;' or, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed _to_ the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden _to approach_ the presence of the emperor;' or, 'The presence of the emperor was forbidden _to_ Thrasea:' 'That very story was shown _to_ him in one of his own books.'"--_Octavo Gram._, p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pa.s.s, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that--_Pa.s.sive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the pa.s.sive verb is not the proper object of the active voice_."--_Barnard's a.n.a.lytic Gram._, p. 134. An other a.s.serts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any pa.s.sive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught _me grammar_: His tutor gave _him a lesson_: He promised _me a reward_. A pa.s.sive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry _was offered a dollar_ by his father to induce him to remain."--_J. M. Putnam's Gram._, pp. 110 and 112.

OBS. 13.--The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the cla.s.sification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs--probably a vast majority--govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; _as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care_. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He _paid_ my _board_; I _told you so_." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, _to name, to mention_. What is there that _cannot be named or mentioned?_ Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, _to transgress a law, or rule_. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or _something_ equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its p.r.o.noun, but scarcely any other; as, "He _lived_ a virtuous _life_."--"Hear, I pray you, this _dream which I have dreamed_"--_Gen._, x.x.xvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they _rain_ no _rain_ upon it."--_Isaiah_, v, 6.

OBS. 14.--Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds.

Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs a.s.sume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."--See _Guy's Gram._, p. 21; _Murray's_, 180; _Ingersoll's_, 183; _Fisk's_, 123; _Smith's_, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in _any sense_, or under _any construction_, that will not, in _every sense_, permit the objective case of a personal p.r.o.noun after it."--_Wright's Gram._, p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, "An _intransitive_ verb may be used to govern an objective."--_Gram._, p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as _conceive, think, believe_, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, "I conceived it (_of_ it) in that light."--_Guy's Gram._, p. 21. "Did you conceive (of) him to be me?"--_Ib._, p. 28. With this idea, few will probably concur.

OBS. 15.--We sometimes find the p.r.o.noun _me_ needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, "It ascends _me_ into the brain; dries _me_ there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours."--_Shakspeare's Falstaff_. "Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster _me_ all to their captain, the heart."--_Id._ This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person; "Fare _you_ well, Falstaff."--_Shak_. Here _you_ was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb _fare_. "Fare thee well."--_W. Scott_. "Farewell _to_ thee."--_Id._ These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, "Fare _thou_ well." Again: "Turn _thee_ aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay _thee hold_ on one of the young men, and take _thee_ his armour."--_2 Sam._, ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy _thee_ for _thou_. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs.

It ought to be thus: "Turn _thou_ aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and _lay hold_ on one of the young men, and take _to thyself_ his armour."

So of the third person: "The king soon found reason to repent _him_ of his provoking such dangerous enemies."--HUME: _Murray's Gram._, Vol. i, p. 180.

Here both of the p.r.o.nouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.

"Good Margaret, _run thee_ into the parlour; There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice."--SHAK.: _Much Ado_.

NOTES TO RULE V.

NOTE I.--Those verbs or participles which require a regimen, or which signify action that must terminate transitively, should not be used without an object; as, "She _affects_ [kindness,] in order to _ingratiate_ [herself] with you."--"I _must caution_ [you], at the same time, against a servile imitation of any author whatever."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 192.

NOTE II.--Those verbs and participles which do not admit an object, or which express action that terminates in themselves, or with the doer, should not be used transitively; as, "The planters _grow_ cotton." Say _raise, produce, or cultivate_. "Dare you speak lightly of the law, or move that, in a criminal trial, judges should advance one step beyond _what_ it permits them _to go_?"--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 278. Say,--"beyond _the point to which_ it permits them to go."

NOTE III.--No transitive verb or participle should a.s.sume a government to which its own meaning is not adapted; as, "_Thou_ is a p.r.o.noun, a word used _instead_ of a noun--personal, it _personates_ 'man.'"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 131. Say, "It _represents man_." "Where _a string_ of such sentences _succeed each other_."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 168. Say, "Where _many_ such sentences _come in succession_."

NOTE IV.--The pa.s.sive verb should always take for its subject or nominative the direct object of the active-transitive verb from which it is derived; as, (Active,) "They denied me this privilege." (Pa.s.sive,) "This _privilege_ was denied _me_;" not, "_I_ was denied this _privilege_:" for _me_ may be governed by _to_ understood, but _privilege_ cannot, nor can any other regimen be found for it.

NOTE V.--Pa.s.sive verbs should never be made to govern the objective case, because the receiving of an action supposes it to terminate on the subject or nominative.[356] Errors: "Sometimes it _is made use of_ to give a small degree of emphasis."--_L. Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 197. Say, "Sometimes it _is used_," &c. "His female characters _have been found fault with_ as insipid."--_Hazlitt's Lect._, p. 111. Say,--"have been _censured_;"

or,--"have been _blamed, decried, dispraised_, or _condemned_."

NOTE VI.--The perfect participle, as such, should never be made to govern any objective term; because, without an active auxiliary, its signification is almost always pa.s.sive: as, "We shall set down the characters _made use of_ to represent all the elementary sounds."--_L. Murray's Gram._, p. 5; _Fisk's_, 34. Say,--"the characters _employed_, or _used_."

NOTE VII.--As the different cases in English are not always distinguished by their form, care must be taken lest their construction be found equivocal, or ambiguous; as, "And we shall always _find our sentences acquire_ more vigour and energy when thus retrenched."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.

111. Say, "We shall always find _that_ our sentences acquire more vigour,"

&c.; or, "We shall always find our sentences _to_ acquire more vigour and energy when thus retrenched."

NOTE VIII.--In the language of our Bible, rightly quoted or printed, _ye_ is not found in the objective case, nor _you_ in the nominative; scriptural texts that preserve not this distinction of cases, are consequently to be considered inaccurate.