The Grammar of English Grammars Part 298

cannot possibly be taken "as _the subject_ of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, subst.i.tuting for the former, "His meat _was_ locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, "The wages of sin _is_ death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be _good English_. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being "a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th;" [that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]-- _Churchill's New Gram._, p. 313.

[393] "If the excellence of Dryden's works was _lessened_ by his indigence, their number was increased."--_Dr. Johnson_. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an _if_, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative _too often_, has the following note upon it: "If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written _were_--'If the excellence of Dryden's works _were_ lessened'--Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote _correct English, instead of grammar_."-- _Philosophical Gram._, p. 238. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.

[394] Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the _solecisms_ adopted by himself and others, about "_unity of idea_" and "_plurality of idea_," in stead of condemning the _things intended to be spoken of_, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 738, under the head of _Absurdities_.

[395] In his _English Reader_, (Part II, Chap. 5th, Sec. 7th,) Murray has this line in its proper form, as it here stands in the words of Thomson; but, in his _Grammar_, he corrupted it, first in his _Exercises_, and then still more in his _Key_. Among his examples of "_False Syntax_" it stands thus:

"What black despair, what horror, _fills_ his _mind_!"

--_Exercises_, Rule 2.

So the error is propagated in the name of _Learning_, and this verse goes from grammar to grammar, as one that must have a "_plural_" verb. See _Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 242; _Smith's New Gram._, p. 127; _Fisk's Gram._, p. 120; _Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 189; Imp. Ed., p. 196.

[396] S. W. Clark, by reckoning "_as_" a "_preposition_," perverts the construction of sentences like this, and inserts a wrong case after the conjunction. See _Clark's Practical Grammar_, pp. 92 and 178; also _this Syntax_, Obs. 6 and Obs. 18, on Conjunctions.

[397] Murray gives us the following text for false grammar, under the head of _Strength_: "And Elias with Moses appeared to them."--_Exercises_, 8vo, p. 135. This he corrects thus: "And _there appeared to them_ Elias with Moses."--_Key_, 8vo, p. 266. He omits the comma after _Elias_, which some copies of the Bible contain, and others do not. Whether he supposed the verb _appeared_ to be singular or plural, I cannot tell; and he did not extend his quotation to the p.r.o.noun _they_, which immediately follows, and in which alone the incongruity lies.

[398] This order of the persons, is _not universally_ maintained in those languages. The words of Mary to her son, "Thy _father and I_ have sought thee sorrowing," seem very properly to give the precedence to her husband; and this is their arrangement in St. Luke's Greek, and in the Latin versions, as well as in others.

[399] The hackneyed example, "_I and Cicero are well,"--"Ego et Cicero valemus_"--which makes such a figure in the grammars, both Latin and English, and yet is ascribed to Cicero himself, deserves a word of explanation. Cicero the orator, having with him his young son Marcus Cicero at Athens, while his beloved daughter Tullia was with her mother in Italy, thus wrote to his wife, Terentia: "_Si tu, et Tullia, lux nostra, valetix; ego, et suavissimus Cicero, valemus_."--EPIST. AD FAM. Lib. xiv, Ep. v.

That is, "If thou, and Tullia, our joy, are well; I, and the sweet lad Cicero, are likewise well." This literal translation is good English, and not to be amended by inversion; for a father is not expected to give precedence to his child. But, when I was a boy, the text and version of Dr.

Adam puzzled me not a little; because I could not conceive how _Cicero_ could ever have said, "_I and Cicero are well_." The garbled citation is now much oftener read than the original. See it in _Crombie's Treatise_, p.

243; _McCulloch's Gram._, p. 158; and others.

[400] Two singulars connected by _and_, when they form a part of such a disjunction, are still equivalent to a plural; and are to be treated as such, in the syntax of the verb. Hence the following construction appears to be inaccurate: "A single consonant or _a mute and a liquid_ before an accented vowel, _is_ joined to that vowel"--_Dr. Bullions, Lat. Gram._ p.

xi.

[401] Murray the schoolmaster has it, "_used_ to govern."--_English Gram._, p. 64. He puts the verb in a _wrong tense_. Dr. Bullions has it, "_usually governs_."--_Lat. Gram._, p. 202. This is right.--G. B.

[402] The two verbs _to sit_ and _to set_ are in general quite different in their meaning; but the pa.s.sive verb _to be set_ sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter. Hence, we not only find the Latin word _sedeo, to sit_, used in the sense of _being set_, as, "Ingens coena _sedet_," "A huge supper _is set_," _Juv._, 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used _is set, was set, &c._, with reference to the personal posture of _sitting_. This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. "_Set_," says the Doctor, "can be no part of the verb _to sit_. If it belong to the verb _to set_, the translation in these pa.s.sages is wrong. For _to set_, signifies _to place_, but without any designation of the _posture_ of the person placed; which is a circ.u.mstance of importance, expressed by the original."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 53; _Churchill's_, 265. These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them--except that they prefer _sitten_ to _sat_, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete. If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate. In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, "_am set_," and by Beza, "_sedeo_;" though Monta.n.u.s and the Vulgate render it literally by "_sedi_," as I do by _sat_. See _Key to False Syntax_, Rule XVII, Note xii.

[403] Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek: to], _the_, and the English or Saxon verb _do_, to be equivalent or kindred words. But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally. The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify _do_, with [Greek: to], _the_, has discovered synonymes [sic--KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers: as, "_It_ and _the_," says he, "when Gender is not attended to, are _synonymous_. Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to _bring forth_, or to _add_ to what we already see. _The, it, and, add, at, to_, and _do_, are _kindred words_. They mark that an _addition_ is made to some collected ma.s.s of existence. _To_, which literally signifies _add_, (like _at_ and the Latin _ad_,) is merely a different p.r.o.nunciation of _do_. It expresses the _junction_ of an other thing, or circ.u.mstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of _too_."--_Introd. to a.n.a.lyt. Dict._, p. 45.

Horne Tooke, it seems, could not persuade this author into his notion of the derivation and meaning of _the, it, to_, or _do_. But Lindley Murray, and his followers, have been more tractable. They were ready to be led without looking. "To," say they, "comes from _Saxon and Gothic_ words, which signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 183; _Fisk's_, 92. What an admirable explanation is this! and how prettily the great Compiler says on the next leaf: "Etymology, when it is guided by _judgment_, and [when] _proper limits_ are set to it, certainly merits great attention!"--_Ib._, p. 135. According to his own express rules for interpreting "a substantive _without any article to limit it_" and the "relative p.r.o.noun _with a comma before it_," he must have meant, that "_to_ comes from Saxon and Gothic words" _of every sort_, and that _the words of these two languages_ "signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c." The latter a.s.sertion is true enough: but, concerning the former, a man of sense may demur. Nor do I see how it is possible not to despise _such_ etymology, be the interpretation of the words what it may. For, if _to_ means _action_ or _to act_, then our little infinitive phrase, _to be_, must mean, _action be_, or _to act be_; and what is this, but nonsense?

[404] So, from the following language of three modern authors, one cannot but infer, that they would pa.r.s.e the verb _as governed by the preposition_; but I do not perceive that they anywhere expressly say so:

(1.) "The Infinitive is the form of the supplemental verb that always has, or admits, the _preposition_ TO before it; as, to _move_. Its general character is to represent the action in _prospect_, or _to do_; or in _retrospect_, as _to have done_. As a verb, it signifies _to do_ the action; and as _object of the preposition_ TO, it stands in the place of a noun for _the doing_ of it. The infinitive verb and its prefix _to_ are used much like a preposition and its noun object."--_Felch's Comprehensive Gram._, p. 62.

(2.) "The action or other signification of a verb may be expressed in its widest and most general sense, without any limitation by a person or agent, but _merely as the end or purpose_ of some other action, state of being, quality, or thing; it is, from this want of limitation, said to be in the _Infinitive mode_; and is expressed by the verb with the _preposition_ TO before it, to denote _this relation of end or purpose_; as, 'He came _to see_ me;' 'The man is not fit _die_;' 'It was not right for him _to do_ thus.'"--_Dr. S. Webber's English Gram._, p. 35.

(3.) "RULE 3. A verb in the Infinitive Mode, is _the object_ of the preposition TO, expressed or understood."--_S. W. Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 127.

[405] Rufus Nutting, A. M., a grammarian of some skill, supposes that in all such sentences there was "_anciently_" an ellipsis, not of the phrase "_in order to_," but of the preposition _for_. He says, "Considering this mode as merely a _verbal noun_, it might be observed, that the infinitive, when it expresses the _object_, is governed by a _transitive_ verb; and, when it expresses the _final cause_, is governed by an _intransitive_ verb, OR ANCIENTLY, BY A PREPOSITION UNDERSTOOD. Of the former kind--'he learns _to read_.' Of the latter--'he reads _to learn_,' i. e. '_for_ to learn.'"--_Practical Gram._, p. 101. If _for_ was anciently understood in examples of this sort, it is understood now, and to a still greater extent; because we do not now insert the word _for_, as our ancestors sometimes did; and an ellipsis can no otherwise grow obsolete, than by a continual use of what was once occasionally omitted.

[406] (1.) "La preposition, est un mot indeclinable, place devant les noms, les p.r.o.noms, et les _verbes_, qu'elle _regit_."--"The preposition is an indeclinable word placed before the nouns, p.r.o.nouns, and _verbs_ which it _governs_."--_Perrin's Grammar_, p. 152.

(2.) "Every verb placed immediately after _an other verb_, or after _a preposition_, ought to be put in the _infinitive_; because it is then _the regimen_ of the verb or preposition which precedes."--See _La Grammaire des Grammaires, par Girault Du Vivier_, p. 774.

(3.) The American translator of the Elements of General Grammar, by the Baron De Sacy, is naturally led, in giving a version of his author's method of a.n.a.lysis, to pa.r.s.e the English infinitive mood essentially as I do; calling the word _to_ a preposition, and the exponent, or sign, of a _relation_ between the verb which follows it, and some other word which is antecedent to it. Thus, in the phrase, "_commanding_ them _to use_ his power," he says, that "'_to_' [is the] Exponent of a relation whose Antecedent is '_commanding_,' and [whose] Consequent [is]

'_use_.'"--_Fosd.i.c.k's De Sacy_, p. 131. In short, he expounds the word _to_ in this relation, just as he does when it stands before the objective case.

For example, in the phrase, "_belonging to him alone: 'to_,' Exponent of a relation of which the Antecedent is '_belonging_,' and the Consequent, '_him alone.'"--Ib._, p. 126. My solution, in either case, differs from this in scarcely any thing else than the _choice of words_ to express it.

(4.) It appears that, in sundry dialects of the north of Europe, the preposition _at_ has been preferred for the governing of the infinitive: "The use of _at_ for _to_, as the sign of the infinitive mode, is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day."--_Fowler, on the English Language_, 8vo, 1850, p. 46.

[407] Here is a literal version, in which two infinitives are governed by the preposition _between_; and though such a construction is uncommon, I know not why it should be thought less accurate in the one language than in the other. In some exceptive phrases, also, it seems not improper to put the infinitive after some other preposition than _to_; as, "What can she do _besides sing_?"--"What has she done, _except rock_ herself?" But such expressions, if allowable, are too unfrequent to be noticed in any general Rule of syntax. In the following example, the word _of_ pretty evidently governs the infinitive: "Intemperance characterizes our discussions, that is calculated to embitter in stead _of conciliate_."--CINCINNATI HERALD: _Liberator_, No. 986.

[408] This doctrine has been lately revived in English by William B. Fowle, who quotes Dr. Rees, Beauzee, Harris, Tracy, and Crombie, as his authorities for it. He is right in supposing the English infinitive to be generally governed by the preposition _to_, but wrong in calling it a _noun_, or "the _name_ of the verb," except this phrase be used in the sense in which every verb may be the name of itself. It is an error too, to suppose with Beauzee, "that the infinitive never in any language _refers to a subject_ or nominative;" or, as Harris has it, that infinitives "_have no reference at all to persons or substances_." See _Fowle's True English Gram._, Part ii, pp. 74 and 75. For though the infinitive verb never _agrees_ with a subject or nominative, like a finite verb, it most commonly has a very obvious _reference_ to something which is _the subject_ of the being, action, or pa.s.sion, which it expresses; and this reference is one of the chief points of difference between the infinitive and a noun. S. S.

Greene, in a recent grammar, absurdly pa.r.s.es infinitives "_as nouns_," and by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them _verbs_.

Thus: "_Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained_, is a _regular pa.s.sive_ VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is _used as a_ NOUN _in the relation of predicate_; according to Rule II. A _noun or p.r.o.noun_ used with the copula to form the _predicate_, must be in the _nominative_ case."--_Greene's Gram._, 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This author admits, "The '_to_' seems, like the preposition, to perform the office of a _connective_:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The infinitive _differs from the preposition and its object_, in that the '_to_' is _the only preposition_ used with the verb." And so he concludes, "The _two_ [or more] _parts_ of the infinitive are taken together, and, _thus_ combined, may _become a_ NOUN _in any relation_."--_Ib._, 1st Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb before it _transitive_; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the _direct object of a transitive verb_ is the _infinitive_; as, 'We intend (What?) _to leave_ [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) _to conceal_ their fears.'"--_Ib._, p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents: "_It is our purpose to leave_ town to-day."--"They _endeavoured to conceal_ their fears." Or in this:--"They _bl.u.s.tered_ to conceal their fears."

[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus: "T, _or_ To, _ad_. A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed _a syllable of the verb_. It is used _merely as a sign of the infinitive_, without having any distinct or separate meaning: as, 'He loves _to_ read.'"--_Univ. and Crit. Dict._ Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by "_read_" is "that _towards_ which" the affection signified by "_loves_" is directed? It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this _to_, that its meaning is not readily seen.

For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or a.n.a.logy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a _part_ of the verb."

[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at _variance_, so there seems to be none on which they are more at _fault_, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, _to_. For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be cla.s.sed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine.

Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.

(1.) "What is the meaning of the word _to?_ Ans. _To_ means _act_.

NOTE.--As our verbs and nouns _are spelled in the same manner_, it was formerly _thought best_ to prefix the _word_ TO, to words _when used as verbs_. For there is no difference between the NOUN, _love_; and the VERB, _to love_; but what is shown by the _prefix_ TO, which signifies _act_; i.

e. to _act_ love."--_R. W. Greene's Inductive Exercises in English Grammar_, N. Y., 1829, p. 52. Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. _To_ no more "means _act_,"

than _from_ "means _act_." And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, "_act love_," is imperative, and makes the word "_love_" a _noun_; and so, "_to act love_," (where "_love_"

is also a noun,) must mean "_act act love_," which is tautological nonsense. Our nouns and verbs are not, _in general_, spelled alike; nor are the latter, _in general_, preceded by _to_; nor could a particle which may govern _either_, have been _specifically intended_, at first, to mark their difference. By some, as we have seen, it is argued from the very sign, that the infinitive is always essentially a noun.

(2.) "The _infinitive mode_ is the _root_ or _simple form_ of the verb, used to express an action or state _indefinitely_; as, _to hear, to speak_.

It is generally distinguished by the sign _to_. When the particle _to_ is employed in _forming_ the infinitive, it is to be regarded as _a part of the verb_. In _every other case_ it is a _preposition_."--_Wells's School Grammar_, 1st Ed., p. 80. "A _Preposition_ is a word which is used to express the relation of a _noun_ or _p.r.o.noun_ depending upon it, to some other word in the sentence."--_Ib._, pp. 46 and 108. "The pa.s.sive form of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a _preposition_, forming a _compound pa.s.sive verb_. Examples:--'He _was listened to_ without a murmur.'--A. H. EVERETT. 'Nor is this enterprise _to be scoffed at_.'--CHANNING."--_Ib._, p. 146. "A verb in the infinitive _usually relates_ to some noun or p.r.o.noun. Thus, in the sentence, 'He desires to improve,' the verb _to improve_ relates to the p.r.o.noun _he_ while it is governed by _desires_."--_Ib._, p. 150. "'The _agent_ to a verb in the infinitive mode must be in the _objective_ case.'--NUTTING."--_Ib._, p.

148. These citations from Wells, the last of which he quotes approvingly, by way of authority, are in many respects self-contradictory, and in nearly all respects untrue. How can the infinitive be only "the _root_ or _simple form_ of the verb," and yet consist "generally" of two distinct words, and often of three, four, or five; as, "_to hear_,"--"_to have heard_,"--"_to be listened to_,"--"_to have been listened to_?" How can _to_ be a "_preposition_" in the phrase, "_He was listened to_," and not so at all in "_to be listened to_?" How does the infinitive "express an action or state _indefinitely_," if it "_usually relates to some noun or p.r.o.noun_?" Why _must_ its _agent_ "be in the _objective_ case," if "_to improve_ relates to the p.r.o.noun _he_?" Is _to "in every other case a preposition_," and not such before a verb or a participle? Must every preposition govern some "_noun or p.r.o.noun_?" And yet are there some prepositions which govern nothing, precede nothing? "The door banged _to_ behind him."--BLACKWELL: _Prose Edda_, --2. What is _to_ here?

(3.) "The _preposition_ TO _before_ a verb is the sign of the Infinitive."--_Weld's E. Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 74. "The preposition is _a part of speech_ used to connect words, and show their relation."--_Ib._, p. 42.

"The perfect infinitive is formed of the perfect participle and the auxiliary HAVE _preceded_ by the _preposition_ TO."--_Ib._, p. 96. "The infinitive mode _follows_ a _verb, noun_, or _adjective_."--_Ib._, pp. 75 and 166. "A verb in the Infinitive _may follow_: 1. _Verbs_ or _participles_; 2. _Nouns_ or _p.r.o.nouns_; 3. _Adjectives_; 4. _As_ or _than_; 5. _Adverbs_; 6. _Prepositions_; 7. The _Infinitive_ is often used _independently_; 8. The Infinitive mode is often used in the office of a _verbal noun_, as the _nominative case_ to the verb, and as the _objective case_ after _verbs_ and _prepositions_."--_Ib._, p. 167. These last two counts are absurdly included among what "the Infinitive _may follow_;" and is it not rather queer, that this mood should be found to "_follow_" every thing else, and _not_ "the preposition TO," which comes "_before_" it, and by which it is "_preceded_?" This author adopts also the following absurd and needless rule: "The Infinitive mode has an objective case before it _when_ [the word] THAT _is omitted_: as, I believe _the sun_ to be the centre of the solar system; I know _him_ to be a man of veracity."--_Ib._, p. 167; _Abridged Ed._, 124. (See Obs. 10th on Rule 2d, above.) "_Sun_" is here governed by "_believe_;" and "_him_," by "_know_;" and "_be_," in both instances, by "the preposition TO:" for this particle is not only "the _sign_ of the Infinitive," but its _governing word_, answering well to the definition of a preposition above cited from Weld.

[411] "The infinitive is sometimes governed by a preposition; as, 'The shipmen were _about to flee_.'"--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 149; 3d Ed., p. 158. Wells has altered this, and for "_preposition_" put "_adverb_."--Ed. of 1850, p. 163.

[412] Some grammatists, being predetermined that no preposition shall control the infinitive, avoid the conclusion by absurdly calling FOR, a _conjunction_; ABOUT, an _adverb_; and TO--no matter what--but generally, _nothing_. Thus: "The _conjunction_ FOR, is inelegantly used before verbs in the infinitive mood; as, 'He came _for_ to study Latin.'"--_Greenleaf's Gram._, p. 38. "The infinitive mood is sometimes _governed_ by _conjunctions_ or _adverbs_; as, 'An object so high _as to be_ invisible;'

'The army is _about to march_.'"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 188. This is a note to that extra rule which Kirkham proposes for our use, "_if we reject the idea of government_, as applied to the verb in this mood!"--_Ib._

[413] After the word "_fare_," Murray put a semicolon, which shows that he misunderstood the mood of the verb "_hear_." It is not always necessary to repeat the particle _to_, when two or more infinitives are connected; and this fact is an other good argument against calling the preposition _to_ "a part of the verb." But in this example, and some others here exhibited, the repet.i.tion is requisite.--G. B.

[414] "The Infinitive Mood is not confined to a trunk or nominative, and is always preceded by _to_, expressed or implied."--_S. Barrett's Gram._, 1854, p. 43.

[415] Lindley Murray, and several of his pretended improvers, say, "The infinitive sometimes _follows_ the word AS: thus, 'An object so high _as to be_ invisible.' The infinitive occasionally _follows_ THAN _after_ a comparison; as, 'He desired _nothing more than to know_ his own imperfections.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 184; _Fisk's_, 125; _Alger's_, 63; _Merchant's_, 92. See this second example in _Weld's Gram._, p. 167; _Abridg._, 124. Merchant, not relishing the latter example, changes it thus: "I wish _nothing more, than to know_ his fate." He puts a comma after _more_, and probably means, "I wish nothing _else_ than to know his fate."

So does Fisk, in the other version: and probably means, "He desired nothing _else_ than to know his own imperfections." But Murray, Alger, and Weld, accord in punctuation, and their meaning seems rather to be, "He desired nothing _more heartily_ than [_he desired_] to know his own imperfections."

And so is this or a similar text interpreted by both Ingersoll and Weld, who suppose this infinitive to be "_governed by another verb, understood_: as, 'He desired nothing _more than to see_ his friends;' that is, 'than he _desired_ to see,' &c."--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 244; _Weld's Abridged_, 124. But obvious as is the _ambiguity_ of this fict.i.tious example, in all its forms, not one of these five critics perceived the fault at all. Again, in their remark above cited, Ingersoll, Fisk, and Merchant, put a comma before the preposition "_after_," and thus make the phrase, "_after a comparison_," describe the place _of the infinitive_. But Murray and Alger probably meant that this phrase should denote the place of the conjunction "_than_." The great "Compiler" seems to me to have misused the phrase "_a comparison_," for, "_an adjective or adverb of the comparative degree_;"

and the rest, I suppose, have blindly copied him, without thinking or knowing what he ought to have said, or meant to say. Either this, or a worse error, is here apparent. Five learned grammarians severally represent either "_than_" or "_the infinitive_," as being AFTER "a _comparison_;" of which one is the copula, and the other but the beginning of the latter term! Palpable as is the _absurdity_, no one of the five perceives it! And, besides, no one of them says any thing about the _government_ of this infinitive, except Ingersoll, and he supplies a _verb_. "_Than_ and _as_,"

says Greenleaf, "sometimes _appear to govern_ the infinitive mood; as, 'Nothing makes a man suspect _much more, than_ to know little;' 'An object so high _as_ to be invisible."--_Gram. Simp._, p. 38. Here is an other fict.i.tious and ambiguous example, in which the phrase, "_to know little_,"

is the subject of _makes_ understood. Nixon supposes the infinitive phrase after _as_ to be always the subject of a finite verb _understood_ after it; as, "An object so high as to be invisible _is_ or, _implies_." See _English Pa.r.s.er_, p. 100.

[416] Dr. Crombie, after copying the substance of Campbell's second Canon, that, "In doubtful cases _a.n.a.logy_ should be regarded," remarks: "For the same reason, '_it needs_' and '_he dares_,' are better than '_he need_' and '_he dare._'"--_On Etym. and Synt._, p. 326. Dr. Campbell's language is somewhat stronger: "In the verbs _to dare_ and _to need_, many say, in the third person present singular, _dare_ and _need_, as 'he _need_ not go: he _dare_ not do it.' Others say, _dares_ and _needs_. As the first usage is _exceedingly irregular_, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorize it."--_Philosophy of Rhet._, p. 175. _Dare_ for _dares_ I suppose to be wrong; but if _need_ is an auxiliary of the potential mood, to use it without inflection, is neither "irregular," nor at all inconsistent with the foregoing canon. But the former critic notices these verbs a second time, thus: "'He _dare_ not,' 'he _need_ not,' may be justly p.r.o.nounced _solecisms_, for 'he _dares_,' 'he _needs_.'"--_Crombie, on Etym. and Synt._, p. 378. He also says, "The verbs _bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, let_, are _not_ followed by the sign of the infinitive."--_Ib._, p.

277. And yet he writes thus: "These are truths, of which, I am persuaded, the author, to whom I allude, _needs_ not _to_ be reminded."--_Ib._, p.

123. So Dr. Bullions declares against _need_ in the singular, by putting down the following example as bad English: "He _need_ not be in so much haste."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 134. Yet he himself writes thus: "A name more appropriate than the term _neuter, need_ not be desired."--_Ib._, p.

196. A school-boy may see the inconsistency of this.