The Grammar of English Grammars Part 295

[303] "The _most unexceptionable_ distinction which grammarians make between the participles, is, that the one points to the continuation of the action, pa.s.sion, or state denoted by the verb; and the other, to the completion of it. Thus, the present participle signifies _imperfect_ action, or action begun and not ended: as, 'I am _writing_ a letter.' The past participle signifies action _perfected_, or finished: as, 'I have _written_ a letter.'--'The letter is written.'"--_Murray's Grammar_, 8vo, p. 65. "The first [participle] expresses a _continuation_; the other, a _completion_."--_W. Allen's Grammar_, 12mo, London, 1813. "The idea which this participle [e.g. '_tearing_'] really expresses, is simply that of the _continuance_ of an action in an _incomplete_ or _unfinished_ state. The action may belong to time _present_, to time _past_, or to time _future_.

The participle which denotes the _completion_ of an action, as _torn_, is called the _perfect_ participle; because it represents the action as _perfect_ or _finished_."--_Barnard's a.n.a.lytic Gram._, p. 51. Emmons stealthily copies from my Inst.i.tutes as many as ten lines in defence of the term '_Imperfect_' and yet, in his conjugations, he calls the participle in _ing_, "_Present_." This seems inconsistent. See his "_Grammatical Instructer_," p. 61.

[304] "The ancient termination (from the Anglo-Saxon) was _and_; as, 'His _schynand_ sword.' Douglas. And sometimes _ende_; as, 'She, between the deth and life, _Swounende_ lay full ofte.' Gower."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p.

88. "The present Participle, in Saxon, was formed by _ande, ende_, or _onde_; and, by cutting off the final _e_, it acquired a Substantive signification, and extended the idea to the agent: as, _alysende_, freeing, and _alysend_, a redeemer; _freonde_, loving or friendly, and _freond_, a lover or a friend."--_Booth's Introd. to Dict._, p. 75.

[305] William B. Fowle, a modern disciple of Tooke, treats the subject of grammatical time rather more strangely than his master. Thus: "How many times or tenses have verbs? _Two_, [the] present and [the] _past_," To this he immediately adds in a note: "We _do not believe_ in a _past_ any more than a future tense of verbs."--_The True English Gram._, p. 30. So, between these two authors, our verbs will retain no tenses at all. Indeed, by his two tenses, Fowle only meant to recognize the two simple forms of an English verb. For he says, in an other place, "We repeat our conviction that no verb in itself expresses time of any sort."--_Ib._, p. 69,

[306] "STONE'-BLIND," "STONE'-COLD," and "STONE'-DEAD," are given in Worcester's Dictionary, as compound _adjectives_; and this is perhaps their best cla.s.sification; but, if I mistake not, they are usually accented quite as strongly on the latter syllable, as on the former, being spoken rather as two emphatic words. A similar example from Sigourney, "I saw an infant _marble cold_," is given by Frazee under this Note: "Adjectives sometimes belong to other adjectives; as, '_red hot_ iron.'"--_Improved Gram._, p.

141. But Webster himself, from whom this doctrine and the example are borrowed, (see his Rule XIX,) makes "RED'-HOT" but one word in his Dictionary; and Worcester gives it as one word, in a less proper form, even without a hyphen, "RED'HOT."

[307] "OF ENALLAGE.--The construction which may be reduced to this figure in English, chiefly appears when one part of speech, is used with the power and effect of another."--_Ward's English Gram._, p. 150.

[308] _Forsooth_ is _literally_ a word of affirmation or a.s.sent, meaning _for truth_, but it is now almost always used _ironically_: as, "In these gentlemen whom the world _forsooth_ calls wise and solid, there is generally either a moroseness that persecutes, or a dullness that tires you."--_Home's Art of Thinking_, p. 24.

[309] In most instances, however, the words _hereof, thereof_, and _whereof_, are placed after _nouns_, and have nothing to do with any _verb_. They are therefore not properly _adverbs_, though all our grammarians and lexicographers call them so. Nor are they _adjectives_; because they are not used adjectively, but rather in the sense of a p.r.o.noun governed by _of_; or, what is nearly the same thing, in the sense of the possessive or genitive case. Example: "And the fame _hereof_ went abroad."--_Matt._, ix, 26. That is, "the fame _of this miracle_;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.

[310] _Seldom_ is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the _seldomest_, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative _often_, was sometimes used _adjectively_; as, "Thine _often_ infirmities."--_1 Tim._, v, 23. "I hope G.o.d's Book hath not been my _seldomest_ lectures."--_Queen Elizabeth_, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb _forward_: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little _forwarder_ to the teeth."--_p.r.o.n. Dict., Principles_, No. 55.

[311] A few instances of the _regular inflection_ of adverbs ending in _ly_, may be met with in _modern_ compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring _sweetlier_ in the echo."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would _safelier_ stand the test."--_Coleridge's Biog. Lit._, Vol. ii, p. 53.

[312] De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative p.r.o.nouns "_Conjunctive Adjectives_." See _Fosd.i.c.k's Translation_, p. 57. He also says, "The words _who, which_, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive _Nouns_ and _Adverbs_, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can subst.i.tute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words _who, which_, etc.

Thus, _when, where, what, how, as_, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish _when_ I please;' that is, 'I shall finish _at the time at which_ I please.'--'I know not _where_ I am;' i.e. 'I know not _the place in which_ I am.'"--_Ib._, p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive _adverbs_, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word _who_ appears to me to be a p.r.o.noun, and not an adjective; and of his "_Conjunctive Nouns_," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.

[313] "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows--_a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making_ TWO _or more significant Sentences to be_ ONE _significant Sentence_."--_Harris's Hermes_, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.

[314] Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho pa.r.s.ed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be pa.r.s.ed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the _nature and construcion [sic--KTH] of a single word_," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, a.n.a.lyze. As examples of "a _conjunctional phrase_," he gives "_as if_ and "_as though_."--_Gram._, p.

25. But when he comes to speak of _ellipsis_, he says: "After the conjunctions _than, as, but_, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [_that is which_] will suffice;' 'He acted _as_ [_he would act_] _if_ he were mad.'"--_Ib._, p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.

[315] Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt.

Harrison cites a good example; p.r.o.nounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "_In_ the following sentence, the relative p.r.o.noun is three times omitted:--'Is there a G.o.d to swear _by_, and is there none to believe _in_, none to trust _to_?'--_Letters and Essays, Anonymous_. _By, in_, and _to_, as prepositions, stand alone, _denuded of the relatives_ to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."--_Harrison's English Language_, p. 196.

[316] "An ellipsis of _from_ after the adverb _off_ has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted _incorrectly_ among the prepositions. Ex.

'off (from) his horse.'"--_Hart's Gram._, p. 96. _Off_ and _on_ are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "_from_" after the former, than _to_ after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down _off_ that bed _on_ which thou art gone up."--2 _Kings_, i, 16.

[317] "_Who consequently_ reduced the _greatest_ part of the island TO their own power."--_Swift, on the English Tongue_. "We can say, that _one nation reduces another_ TO _subjection_. But when _dominion_ or _power_ is used, we always, _as_ [so] far as I know, say, _reduce_ UNDER _their power_" [or _dominion_]--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 229.

[318] "_O foy_, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."--DOUBLE DEALER: _Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 305.

[319] According to Walker and Webster, _la_ is p.r.o.nounced _law_; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French _la_, which is p.r.o.nounced _lah_.

Johnson and Webster make _la_ and _lo_ synonymous; deriving _lo_ from the Saxon _la_, and _la_ either from _lo_ or from the French _la_. "_Law_, how you joke, cousin."--_Columbian Orator_, p. 178. "_Law_ me! the very ghosts are come now!"--_Ibid._ "_Law_, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"--_Ibid._

"_La_ you! If you speak ill of the devil, How he takes it at heart!"--SHAKESPEARE: _Joh. Dict., w. La._

[320] The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"--_Newspaper_. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"--_Shakespeare_.

"Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"--_Id._ "Suits my complexion--_hey_, gal? so I think."--_Yankee Schoolmaster_. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"--SCOTT'S IVANHOE: _Fowler's E. Gram._, --29.

[321] Though _oh_ and _ah_ are most commonly used as signs of these depressing pa.s.sions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "_Ah_, pleasant proof," &c.--_Cowper's Task_, p. 179. "Merrily _oh!_ merrily _oh!_"--_Moore's Tyrolese Song_. "Cheerily _oh!_ cheerily _oh!_"--_Ib._ But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection _O_: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and subst.i.tute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.

[322] This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The _object_ cannot properly be called one of the princ.i.p.al parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be _the object of a transitive verb_; as, 'I wish _to ride_;' 'I wish _you to ride_.'"--_Ib._, p. 37. Or, with the _contrary_ notion, that, "An infinitive may be _the object of a_ _preposition_, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish _for you to ride_.'"--_Ibid._ But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (_Ib._, p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words _added to verbs_, and sometimes to other words, to _qualify_ their meaning."--_Ib._, p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere _adjuncts_ may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the _true_ object of the transitive verb _is one of the princ.i.p.al_ _parts_ of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.

[323] Some writers distinguish sentences as being of _three_ kinds, _simple_, and _complex_, and _compound_; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound.

A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is _simple_; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is _complex_; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is _compound_."--_Greene's a.n.a.lysis_, p. 3. The term _compound_, as applied to sentences, is not _usually_ so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A _Simple Sentence_ contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The _sun shines_.' A _Complex Sentence_ contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The _sun_ and the _stars_ shine.' 'The sun _rises_ and _sets_.' 'The _sun_ and the _stars rise_ and _set_.' A _Compound Sentence_ is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The _sun shines_, and the _stars twinkle_.' 'The _sun rises_ and _sets_, as the _earth revolves_.'"--_Pinneo's English Teacher_, p. 10; _a.n.a.lytical Gram._, pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a _complex sentence_ is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripart.i.te distribution.

[324] The terms _clause_ and _member_, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called _clauses_; and those separated by semicolons, are called _members_."--_Hiley' s Gram._, p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a _clause_. When the _members_ of a compound sentence are complex, they are _subdivided_ into _clauses_; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 128. By some authors, the terms _clause_ and _phrase_ are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import.

Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "_composing frequently_," is absurdly called a _clause_; "an entire _clause_ of a sentence."--See _Murray's Gram._, p. 179; _Alger's_, 61; _Fisk's_, 108; _Ingersoll's_, 180; _Merchant's_, 84; _R. C. Smith's_, 152; _Weld's_, 2d Ed., 150. The term _sentence_ also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "_James and William_," "_Thomas and John_," and others similar, are called "sentences."--_Smith's New Gram._, pp. 9 and 10.

So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A _whole sentence_ is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' _Being a young man_, is the object of the preposition _of_."--_Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "_being a young man_," here depends upon "_of_;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "_being_."

The construction of the word "_man_" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all _agreement_ consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but _government_ is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circ.u.mstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word _in parsing_ never governs the same word _which_ it qualifies, or with which it agrees."--_Practical Gram._, p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case _governs_ a verb."--_Ib._ p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following _untrue_, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the p.r.o.noun is governed by, _an consequently agrees with_, the preceding word."--_Exercises_, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the p.r.o.noun is governed by the preceding word, _and consequently agrees with it_."--_Key_, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form.

See the same example, with the same variation of it, in _Smith's New Gram._, p. 167; and, without the change, in _Ingersoll's_, p. 233; _and Fisk's_, 141.

[326] It has been the notion of some grammarians, that _the verb governs the nominative before it_. This is an old rule, which seems to have been very much forgotten by modern authors; though doubtless it is as true, and as worthy to be perpetuated, as that which supposes the nominative to govern the verb: "Omne verb.u.m personale finiti modi regit ante se expresse vel subaudite ejusdem numeri et personae nominativum vel aliquid pro nominativo: ut, _ego scribo, tu legis, ille auscultat_."--DESPAUTERII SYNT.

fol. xvi. This Despauter was a laborious author, who, within fifty years after the introduction of printing, complains that he found his task heavy, on account of the immense number of books and opinions which he had to consult: "Necdum tamen huic operi ultimam manum aliter imposui, quam Apelles olim picturis: siquidem aptius exire, quum in multis tum in hac arte est difficillimum, _propter librorum legendorum immensitatem_, et opinionum innumeram diversitatem."--_Ibid., Epist. Apologetica_, A. D.

1513. But if, for this reason, the task was heavy _then_, what is it _now_!

[327] Nutting's rule certainly implies that _articles_ may relate to _p.r.o.nouns_, though he gives no example, nor can he give any that is now good English; but he may, if he pleases, quote some other modern grammatists, who teach the same false doctrine: as, "RULE II. _The article refers to its noun_ (OR p.r.o.nOUN) _to limit its signification_."--R. G.

Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 18. Greene's two grammars are used extensively in the state of Maine, but they appear to be little known anywhere else. This author professes to inculcate "the principles established by Lindley Murray." If veracity, on this point, is worth any thing, it is a pity that in both books there are so many points which, like the foregoing parenthesis, belie this profession. He followed here Ingersoll's RULE IV, which is this: "_The article refers to a noun_ OR p.r.o.nOUN, _expressed or understood, to limit its signification_."-- _Conversations on E. Gram._, p. 185.

[328] It is truly a matter of surprise to find under what _t.i.tles_ or _heads_, many of the rules of syntax have been set, by some of the best scholars that have ever written on grammar. In this respect, the Latin and Greek grammarians are particularly censurable; but it better suits my purpose to give an example or two from one of the ablest of the English.

Thus that elegant scholar the Rev. W. Allen: "SYNTAX OF NOUNS. 325. A verb agrees with its nominative case in number and person."--_Elements of E.

Gram._, p. 131. This is in no wise the syntax of _Nouns_, but rather that of _the Verb_. Again: "SYNTAX OF VERBS. 405. Active Verbs govern the accusative case; as, I love _him_. We saw _them_. G.o.d rules the _world_."--_Ib._, p. 161. This is not properly the syntax of _Verbs_, but rather that of _Nouns_ or _p.r.o.nouns_ in the accusative or objective case.

Any one who has but the least sense of order, must see the propriety of referring the rule to that sort of words to which it is applied in parsing, and not some other. Verbs are never pa.r.s.ed or construed by the latter of these rules nor nouns by the former.

[329] What "the Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, ON THE SAME PLAN," will ultimately be,--how many treatises for each or any of the languages it will probably contain,--what uniformity will be found in the distribution of their several sorts and sizes,--or what _sameness_ they will have, except that which is bestowed by the binders,--cannot yet be stated with any certainty. It appears now, in 1850, that the scheme has thus far resulted in the production of _three remarkably different grammars_, for the English part of the series, and two more, a Latin grammar and a Greek, which resemble each other, or any of these, as little.

In these works, abound changes and discrepances, sometimes indicating a great _unsettlement_ of "principles" or "plan," and often exciting our wonder at the extraordinary _variety_ of teaching, which has been claimed to be, "as nearly in the same words as the as the _genius of the languages_ would permit!" In what _should_ have been uniform, and easily _might_ have been so, these grammars are rather remarkably diverse! Uniformity in the order, number, or phraseology of the Rules of Syntax, even for our own language, seems scarcely yet to have entered this "SAME PLAN" at all! The "onward progress of English grammar," or, rather, of the author's studies therein, has already, within "fifteen years," greatly varied, from the _first model_ of the "_Series_," his own idea of a good grammar; and, though such changes bar consistency, a future progress, real or imaginary, may likewise, with as good reason, vary it yet as much more. In the preface to the work of 1840, it is said: "This, though _not essentially different_ from the former, is yet in some respects a new work. It has been almost _entirely rewritten_." And again: "The Syntax is _much fuller_ than in the former work; and though _the rules are not different_, they are arranged in a _different order_." So it is proved, that the model needed remodelling; and that the Syntax, especially, was defective, in matter as well as in order. The suggestions, that "_the rules are not different_," and the works, _"not essentially" so_, will sound best to those who shall never compare them. The old code has thirty-four chief, and twenty-two "special rules;" the new has twenty chief, thirty-six "special," and one "general rule." Among all these, we shall scarcely find _exact sameness_ preserved in so many as half a dozen instances. Of the old thirty-four, _fourteen only_ were judged worthy to remain as princ.i.p.al rules; and two of these have no claim at all to such rank, one of them being quite useless. Of the _twenty_ now made chief, five are new to "the Series of Grammars," and three of these exceedingly resemble as many of mine; five are slightly altered, and five greatly, from their predecessors among the old: one is the first half of an old rule; one is an old subordinate rule, altered and elevated; and _three are as they were before_, their numbers and relative positions excepted!

[330] "The grammatical predicate is a verb."--_Butler's Pract. Gram._, 1845, p. 135, "_The grammatical predicate_ is a finite verb."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1850, p. 185. "The grammatical predicate is either a verb alone, or the copula _sum_ [some part of the verb _be_] with a noun or adjective."--_Andrews and Stoddard's Lat. Gram._, p. 163. "The _predicate_ consists of two parts,--the verb, or _copula_, and that which is a.s.serted by it, called the _attribute_; as 'Snow _is white_.'"--_Greene's a.n.a.lysis_.

p. 15. "The _grammatical_ predicate consists of the _attribute_ and _copula_ not modified by other word."--_Bullions, a.n.a.lyt, and Pract.

Gram._, P. 129. "The _logical_ predicate is the grammatical, with all the words or phrases that modify it." _Ib._ p. 130. "The _Grammatical predicate_ is the word or words containing the simple affirmation, made respecting the subject."--_Bullions, Latin Gram._, p. 269. "Every proposition necessarily consists of these three parts: [the _subject_, the _predicate_, and the _copula_;] but then it is not alike needful, that they be all severally expressed in words; because the copula _is often included_ in the term of the predicate; as when we say, _he sits_, which imports the same as, _he is sitting_."--_Duncan's Logic_, p 105. In respect to this Third Method of a.n.a.lysis. It is questionable, whether a noun or an adjective which follows the verb and forms part of the a.s.sertion, is to be included in "the grammatical predicate" or not. Wells says, No: "It would destroy at once all distinction between the grammatical and the logical predicate."--_School Gram._, p. 185. An other question is, whether the _copula_ (_is, was_ or the like,) which the _logicians_ discriminate, should be included as part of the _logical_ predicate, when it occurs as a distinct word. The prevalent practice of the _grammatical_ a.n.a.lyzers is, so to include it,--a practice which in itself is not very "logical." The distinction of subjects and predicates as "_grammatical_ and _logical_," is but a recent one. In some grammars, the part.i.tion used in logic is copied without change, except perhaps of _words_: as "There are, in sentences, a _subject_, a _predicate_ and a _copula_." JOS. R. CHANDLER, _Gram. of_ 1821, p. 105; _Gram. of_ 1847, p. 116. The logicians, however, and those who copy them, may have been hitherto at fault in recognizing and specifying their "_copula_." Mulligan forcibly argues that the verb of _being_ is no more ent.i.tled to this name than is every other verb. (See his _Exposition_," --46.) If he is right in this, the "_copula_" of the logicians (an in my opinion, his own also) is a mere figment of the brain, there being nothing that answers to the definition of the thing or to the true use of the word.

[331] I cite this example from Wells, for the purpose of explaining it without the several errors which that gentleman's _"Model"_ incidentally inculcates. He suggests that _and_ connects, not the two relative _clauses_, as such, but the two verbs _can give_ and _can take_; and that the connexion between _away_ and _is_ must be traced through the former, and its object _which._ These positions, I think, are wrong. He also uses here, as elsewhere, the expressions, _"which relates it"_ and, _"which is related by,"_ each in a very unusual, and perhaps an unauthorized, sense.

His formule reads thus: "_Away_ modifies _can take_; _can take_ is CONNECTED with _can give_ by _and_; WHICH is governed by CAN GIVE, and relates to _security_; _security_ is the object of _finding_, _which_ is RELATED BY _of_ to _conviction_; _conviction_ is the object of with, _which_ RELATES IT to _can look_; _to_ expresses the relation between _whom_ and _can look_, and _whom_ relates to _Being_, which is the subject of _is."_ --_Wells's School Gram._, 113th Ed., p. 192. Neither this nor the subsequent method has been often called _"a.n.a.lysis;"_ for, in grammar, each user of this term has commonly applied it to some one method only,--the method preferred by himself.

[332] The possessive phrase here should be, "_Andrews and Stoddard's_," as Wells and others write it. The adding of the apostrophe to the former name is wrong, even by the better half of Butler's own absurd and self-contradictory Rule: to wit, "When two or more nouns in the possessive case are connected by _and_, the possessive termination _should be added to each of them_; as, 'These are _John's and Eliza's_ books.' But, if objects are possessed in common by two or more, and the nouns are closely connected without any intervening words, the possessive termination is _added to the last noun only_; as, 'These are _John and Eliza's_ books.'"--_Butler's_ _Practical Gram._, p. 163. The sign twice used implies two governing nouns: "John's and Eliza's books." = "John's books and Eliza's;" "Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," = "Andrews' (or Andrews's) Latin Grammar and Stoddard's"

[333] In Mulligan's recent "Exposition of the Grammatical Structure of the English Language,"--the work of an able hand,--this kind of "a.n.a.lysis,"

being most improperly p.r.o.nounced "_the chief business of the grammarian_,"

is swelled by copious explanation under minute heads, to a volume containing more than three times as much matter as Greene's; but, since school-boys have little relish for long arguments, and prolixity had here already reached to satiety and disgust, it is very doubtful whether the practical utility of this "Improved Method of Teaching Grammar," will be greater in proportion to this increase of bulk.--G. B., 1853.

[334] "I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently instructs us by rule and example; but I am sure we have none, that in the manner here attempted, teaches us what is right, by showing what is wrong; though this perhaps may prove _the more useful and effectual method_ of Instruction."--_Lowth's Gram., Pref._, p. viii.

[335] With the possessive case and its governing noun, we use but _one article_; and sometimes it seems questionable, to which of the two that article properly relates: as, "This is one of _the_ Hebrews'

children."--_Exodus_, ii, 6. The sentence is plainly equivalent to the following, which has two articles: "This is one of _the_ children of _the_ Hebrews." Not because the one article is equivalent to the two, or because it relates to both of the nouns; but because the possessive relation itself makes one of the nouns sufficiently definite. Now, if we change the latter construction back into the former, it is the noun _children_ that drops its article; it is therefore the other to which the remaining article relates.

But we sometimes find examples in which the same a.n.a.logy does not hold.

Thus, "_a summer's day_" means, "_a day of summer_;" and we should hardly p.r.o.nounce it equivalent to "_the day of a summer_." So the questionable phrase, "_a three days' journey_," means, "_a journey of three days_;" and, whether the construction be right or wrong, the article _a_ cannot be said to relate to the plural noun. Possibly such a phrase as, "_the three years'

war_," might mean, "_the war of three years_;" so that the article must relate to the latter noun. But in general it is the latter noun that is rendered definite by the possessive relation: thus the phrase, "_man's works_" is equivalent to "_the works_ of man," not to "_works of the man_;"

so, "_the man's works_," is equivalent, not to "the works of man," but to "the works of _the_ man."