OBS. 23.—In French, the infinitive is governed by several different prepositions, and the gerundive by one only, the preposition en,—which, however, is sometimes suppressed; as, "en passant, en faisant,—il alloit courant."—Traité des Participes, p. 2. In English, the gerundive is governed by several different prepositions, and the infinitive by one only, the preposition to,—which, in like manner, is sometimes suppressed; as, "to pass, to do,—I saw him run." The difficulties in the syntax of the French participle in ant, which corresponds to ours in ing, are apparently as great in themselves, as those which the syntax of the English word presents; but they result from entirely different causes, and chiefly from the liability there is of confounding the participle with the verbal adjective, which is formed from it. The confounding of it with the gerundive is now, in either language, of little or no consequence, since in modern French, as well as in English, both are indeclinable. For this reason, I have framed the syntactical rule for participles so as to include under that name the gerund, or gerundive, which is a participle governed by a preposition. The great difficulty with us, is, to determine whether the participle ought, or ought not, to be allowed to assume other characteristics of a noun, without dropping those of a participle, and without becoming wholly a noun. The liability of confounding the English participle with the verbal or participial adjective, amounts to nothing more than the occasional misnaming of a word in parsing; or perhaps an occasional ambiguity in the style of some writer, as in the following citation: "I am resolved, 'let the newspapers say what they please of canvassing beauties, haranguing toasts, and mobbing demireps,' not to believe one syllable."—Jane West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 74. From these words, it is scarcely possible to find out, even with the help of the context whether these three sorts of ladies are spoken of as the canvassers, haranguers, and mobbers, or as being canvassed, harangued, and mobbed. If the prolixity and multiplicity of these observations transcend the reader's patience, let him consider that the questions at issue cannot be settled by the brief enunciation of loose individual opinions, but must be examined in the light of all the analogies and facts that bear upon them. So considerable are the difficulties of properly distinguishing the participle from the verbal adjective in French, that that indefatigable grammarian, Girault Du Vivier, after completing his Grammaire des Grammaires in two large octavo volumes, thought proper to enlarge his instructions on this head, and to publish them in a separate book, (Traité des Participes,) though we have it on his own authority, that the rule for participles had already given rise to a greater number of dissertations and particular treatises than any other point in French grammar.
OBS. 24.—A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his strength's declining."—"He was sensible of his strength declining." In the former sentence, the noun strength should be in the objective case, governed by felt; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by declining. Thus: "He felt his strength declining;" i.e., "felt it decline."—"He was sensible of his strength's declining;" i.e., "of its decline." These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable. This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th. But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.
OBS. 25.—Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science. And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate. The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once. The absolute necessity of classing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof. Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of verbs, participles, and nouns, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them. For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T. O. Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English grammar. Of the participle the latter gives no formal definition, but he represents it as "a form, in which the action denoted by the verb is capable of being joined to a noun as its quality, or accident."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is a mere mode of the verb is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."—Ib., p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a noun: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking s at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has the comings in of a prince, may be ruined by his own gaming, or his wife's squandering.'"—Ib., p. 144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the s, not at the end, but in the middle; for comings-in, (an obsolete expression for revenues,) is not two words, but one. Nor are gaming and squandering, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles become nouns when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "is" and "may be" are not nouns, but participles: "Walking is the best exercise, though riding may be more pleasant."—Ib., p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguishing of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.
OBS. 26.—Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's—and no worse than what the reader may find in many an English Grammar now in use. This author's fault is not so much a lack of learning or of comprehension, as of order and discrimination. We see in him, that it is possible for a man to be well acquainted with English authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter miserably in describing the nature and uses of the English participle. Like many others, he does not acknowledge this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but commences his account of it by the following absurdity: "The participles are adjectives derived from the verb; as, pursuing, pursued, having pursued."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 62. This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but merges the whole of the former species in a part of speech of which he had not even recognized the latter as a subdivision: "An adjective shows the quality of a thing. Adjectives may be reduced to five classes: 1. Common—2. Proper—3. Numeral—4. Pronominal—5. Compound."—Ib., p. 47. Now, if "participles are adjectives," to which of these five classes do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth class, without which this distribution is false and incomplete: as, "a loving father; an approved copy." The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun. But says our author, "Participles, as simple adjectives, belong to a noun; as, a loving father; an approved copy;—as parts of the verb, they have the same government as their verbs have; as, his father, recalling the pleasures of past years, joined their party."—Ib., p. 170. What confusion is this! a complete jumble of adjectives, participles, and "parts of verbs!" Again: "Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early rising is conducive to health; I like writing; we depend on seeing you."—Ib., p. 171. Here rising and writing are nouns; but seeing is a participle, because it is active and governs you, Compare this second jumble with the definition above. Again he proceeds: "To participles thus used, many of our best authors prefix the article; as, 'The being chosen did not prevent disorderly behaviour.' Bp. Tomline. 'The not knowing how to pass our vacant hours.' Seed."—Ib., p. 171. These examples I take to be bad English. Say rather, "The state of election did not prevent disorderly behaviour."—"The want of some entertainment for our vacant hours." The author again proceeds: "If a noun limits the meaning of a participle thus used, that noun is put in the genitive; as, your father's coming was unexected."—Ib., p. 171. Here coming is a noun, and no participle at all. But the author has a marginal note, "A possessive pronoun is equivalent to a genitive;" (ibid.;) and he means to approve of possessives before active participles: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from our having received the words through a French medium."—Ib., p. 116. This brings us again to that difficult and apparently unresolvable problem, whether participles as such, by virtue of their mixed gerundive character, can, or cannot, govern the possessive case; a question, about which, the more a man examines it, the more he may doubt.
OBS. 27.—But, before we say any thing more about the government of this case, let us look at our author's next paragraph on participles: "An active participle, preceded by an article or by a genitive, is elegantly followed by the preposition of, before the substantive which follows it; as, the compiling of that book occupied several years; his quitting of the army was unexpected."—Allen's Gram., p. 171. Here the participial nouns compiling and quitting are improperly called active participles, from which they are certainly as fairly distinguished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever. And this complete distinction the author considers at least an elegance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition. And he immediately adds: "When this construction produces ambiguity, the expression must be varied."—Ib., p. 171. This suggestion is left without illustration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray's remarks, in which it is said: "A phrase in which the article precedes the present participle and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition. 'He expressed the pleasure he had in the hearing of the philosopher,' is capable of a different sense from, 'He expressed the pleasure he had in hearing the philosopher.'"—Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 193; R. C. Smith's Gram., 161; Ingersoll's, 199; and others. Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word hearing a "present participle;" and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful comma, still more absurdly supposes it ambiguous: whereas the phrase, "in the hearing of the philosopher," means only, "in the philosopher's hearing;" and not, "in hearing the philosopher," or, "in hearing of the philosopher." But the true question is, would it be right to say, "He expressed the pleasure he had in the philosopher's hearing him?" For here it would be equivocal to say, "in the philosopher's hearing of him;" and some aver, that of would be wrong, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear. But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and compare it with his own doctrines. To say, "from our having received of the words through a French medium," would certainly be no elegance; and if it be not an ambiguity, it is something worse. The expression, then, "must be varied." But varied how? Is it right without the of, though contrary to the author's rule for elegance?
OBS. 28.—The observations which have been made on this point, under the rule for the possessive case, while they show, to some extent, the inconsistencies in doctrine, and the improprieties of practice, into which the difficulties of the mixed participle have betrayed some of our principal grammarians, bring likewise the weight of much authority and reason against the custom of blending without distinction the characteristics of nouns and participles in the same word or words; but still they may not be thought sufficient to prove this custom to be altogether wrong; nor do they pretend to have fully established the dogma, that such a construction is in no instance admissible. They show, however, that possessives before participles are seldom to be approved; and perhaps, in the present instance, the meaning might be quite as well expressed by a common substantive, or the regular participial noun: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from our reception of the words—or our receiving of the words—through a French medium." But there are some examples which it is not easy to amend, either in this way, or in any other; as, "The miscarriages of youth have very much proceeded from their being imprudently indulged, or left to themselves."—Friends' N. E. Discipline, p. 13. And there are instances too, of a similar character, in which the possessive case cannot be used. For example: "Nobody will doubt of this being a sufficient proof."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 66. "But instead of this being the fact of the case, &c."—Butlers Analogy, p. 137. "There is express historical or traditional evidence, as ancient as history, of the system of religion being taught mankind by revelation."—Ibid. "From things in it appearing to men foolishness."—Ib., p. 175. "As to the consistency of the members of our society joining themselves to those called free-masons."—N. E. Discip., p. 51. "In either of these cases happening, the person charging is at liberty to bring the matter before the church, who are the only judges now remaining."—Ib., p. 36; Extracts, p. 57. "Deriving its efficacy from the power of God fulfilling his purpose."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 235. "We have no idea of any certain portion of time intervening between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 33: Murray's, i, 70; Emmons's, 41; and others. The following example therefore, however the participle may seem to be the leading word in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: "The reason and time of the Son of God's becoming man."—Brown's Divinity, p. xxii. Many writers would here be satisfied with merely omitting the possessive sign; as does Churchill, in the following example: "The chief cause of this appears to me to lie in grammarians having considered them solely as the signs of tense."—New Gram., p. 243. But this sort of construction, too, whenever the noun before the participle is not the leading word in sense, is ungrammatical. In stead, therefore, of stickling for choice between two such errors, we ought to adopt some better expression; as, "The reason and time of the Saviour's incarnation."—"The chief cause of this appears to me to be, that grammarians have considered them solely as signs of tense."
OBS. 29.—It is certain that the noun or pronoun which "limits the meaning of a participle," cannot always be "put in the genitive" or possessive case; for the sense intended sometimes positively forbids such a construction, and requires the objective: as, "A syllable consists of one or more letters forming one sound."—Allen's Gram., p. 29. The word representing or denoting would here be better than forming, because the letters do not, strictly speaking, form the sound. But chiefly let it be noticed, that the word letters could not with any propriety have been put in the possessive case. Nor is it always necessary or proper, to prefer that case, where the sense may be supposed to admit it; as, "'The example which Mr. Seyer has adduced, of the gerund governing the genitive of the agent.' Dr. Crombie."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 237. "Which possibly might have been prevented by parents doing their duty."—N. E. Discipline, p. 187. "As to the seeming contradiction of One being Three, and Three One."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 113. "You have watched them climbing from chair to chair."—PIERPONT: Liberator, Vol. x, p. 22. "Whether the world came into being as it is, by an intelligent Agent forming it thus, or not."—Butler's Analogy, p. 129. "In the farther supposition of necessary agents being thus rewarded and punished."—Ib., p. 140. "He grievously punished the Israelites murmuring for want of water."—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 21. Here too the words, gerund, parents, One, Three, them, Agent, agents, and Israelites, are rightly put in the objective case; yet doubtless some will think, though I do not, that they might as well have been put in the possessive. Respectable writers sometimes use the latter case, where the former would convey the same meaning, and be more regular; as, "Which is used, as active verbs often are, without its regimen's being expressed."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 302. Omit the apostrophe and s; and, if you please, the word being also. "The daily instances of men's dying around us."—Butler's Analogy, p. 113. Say rather,—"of men dying around us." "To prevent our rashly engaging in arduous or dangerous enterprises."—Brown's Divinity, p. 17. Say, "To prevent us from," &c. The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong: "The kitchen too now begins to give 'dreadful note of preparation;' not from armourers accomplishing the knights, but from the shop maid's chopping force meat, the apprentice's cleaning knives, and the journeyman's receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 66. It should be—"not from armorers accomplishing the knights, but from the shopmaid chopping forcemeat, the apprentice cleaning knives, and the journeyman receiving," &c. The nouns are the principal words, and the participles are adjuncts. They might be separated by commas, if semicolons were put where the commas now are.
OBS. 30.—Our authors, good and bad, critics and no critics, with few exceptions, write sometimes the objective case before the participle, and sometimes the possessive, under precisely the same circumstances; as, "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody suffering."—Blair's Rhet., p. 122. "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 327. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody suffering."—Murray's Exercises, 8vo, p. 60. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 195. "And I explain what is meant by the nominative case governing the verb, and by the verb agreeing with its nominative case."—Rand's Gram., p. 31. "Take the verb study, and speak of John's studying his lesson, at different times."—Ib., p. 53. "The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., p. 112. "The following are examples of an adverb's qualifying a whole sentence."—Ib., p. 128. "Where the noun is the name of a person, the cases may also be distinguished by the nominative's answering to WHO, and the objective to WHOM."—Hart's Gram., p. 46. "This depends chiefly on their being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel sound being long or short."—Churchill's Gram., p. 182. "When they speak of a monosyllable having the grave or the acute accent."—Walker's Key, p. 328. Here some would erroneously prefer the possessive case before "having;" but, if any amendment can be effected it is only by inserting as there. "The event of Maria's loving her brother."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 55. "Between that and the man being on it."—Ib., p. 59. "The fact of James placing himself."—Ib., p. 166. "The event of the persons' going."—Ib., p. 165. Here persons' is carelessly put for person's, i.e., James's: the author was parsing the puerile text, "James went into a store and placed himself beside Horatio."—Ib., p. 164. And I may observe, in passing, that Murray and Blair are both wrong in using commas with the adverb presently above.
OBS. 31.—It would be easy to fill a page with instances of these two cases, the objective and the possessive, used, as I may say, indiscriminately; nor is there any other principle by which we can determine which of them is right, or which preferable, than that the leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in the construction, and that the participle, if it remain such, ought rather to relate to its noun, as being the adjunct, than to govern it in the possessive, as being the principal term. To what extent either of these cases may properly be used before the participle, or in what instances either of them may be preferable to the other, it is not very easy to determine. Both are used a great deal too often, filling with blemishes the style of many authors: the possessive, because the participle is not the name of any thing that can be possessed; the objective, because no construction can be right in which the relation of the terms is not formed according to the sense. The former usage I have already criticised to a great extent. Let one example suffice here: "There can be no objection to a syllable's being long, on the ground of its not being so long, or so much protracted, as some other long syllables are."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer syllable to syllable's, but none would be apt to put it for its, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a syllable as being long, on the ground that it is not so long as some other syllables."
OBS. 32.—It should be observed, that the use of as between the participle and the noun is very often better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military success as forming a claim to civil position."—Boston Daily Advertiser. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any one being chosen for a pattern."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its authenticity being shaken, it has been rendered more sure than ever."— West's Letters, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper candidate being nominated by either party."—Liberator, Vol. x. p. 9. "On the first stone being thrown, it was returned by a fire of musketry."—Ib., p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent person being circumvented by bribery."—Blair's Rhet., p. 276. "Whose principles forbid them taking part in the administration of the government."— Liberator, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross bodies being ourselves."—Butler's Analogy, p. 150. "In consequence of this revelation being made."—Ib., p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "Scarcely is any one ever chosen for a pattern."— "Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken, has been rendered more sure than ever."—"When there is no longer a possibility that a proper candidate will be nominated by either party."—"As soon as the first stone was thrown, there was returned a fire of musketry."—"To raise a cry, as if an innocent person had been circumvented by bribery."— "Whose principles forbid them to take part in the administration of the government."—"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies are ourselves."—"In consequence of this revelation which is made."
OBS. 33.—A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some late writers have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady Macbeth's walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.' This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, Lady Macbeth; whereas the meaning is, not that Lady Macbeth, but her walking in her sleep, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my horse's running to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my horse running to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."— Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram., p. 15. (See Crombie's Treatise, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my horse running to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my horse's running? means, he has run, do you think he ran well?"— Lennie's Gram., p. 91; Brace's Gram., 94. See Bullions's Gram., p. 107; Hiley's, 94; Murray's, 8vo. 195: Ingersoll's, 201: and many others.
OBS. 34.—Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word walking, preceded by a possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a noun, and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use of possessives before participles, and even to hold all phraseology of this kind "unobjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of that blunder is different from the thousand errors or irregularities which they intend to shelter under it. To call a lady an "incident," is just as far from any Latin idiom, as it is from good English; whereas the very thing which they thus object to at first, they afterwards approve in this text: "What think you of my horse running to-day?" This phraseology corresponds with "the Latin idiom;" and it is this, that, in fact, they begin with pronouncing to be "less correct" than, "What think you of my horse's running to-day?"
OBS. 35.—Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction of signification; as, if "the horse's running to-day," must needs imply a past action, though, (they suppose,) "the pupil's composing frequently," or, "the horse running to-day," signifies a future one. This distinction of time is altogether imaginary; and the notion, that to prefer the possessive case before participles, is merely to withstand an error of "some late writers," is altogether false. The instructions above cited, therefore, determine nothing rightly, except the inaccuracy of one very uncommon form of expression. For, according to our best grammarians, the simple mode of correction there adopted will scarcely be found applicable to any other text. It will not be right where the participle happens to be transitive, or even where it is qualified by an adverb. From their subsequent examples, it is plain that these gentlemen think otherwise; but still, who can understand what they mean by "the common mode of expression?" What, for instance, would they substitute for the following very inaccurate expression from the critical belles-lettres of Dr. Blair? "A mother accusing her son, and accusing him of such actions, as having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."—Blair's Lectures, p. 274. Would they say. "A mother's accusing her son, &c., were circumstances," &c.? Is this their "common mode of expression?" and if it is, do they not make "common" what is no better English than the Doctor's? If, to accuse a son, and to accuse him greatly, can be considered different circumstances of the same prosecution, the sentence may be corrected thus: "A mother's accusing of her son, and her charging of him with such actions, as those of having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."
OBS. 36.—On several occasions, as in the tenth and twelfth observations on Rule 4th, and in certain parts of the present series, some notice has been taken of the equivalence or difference of meaning, real or supposed, between the construction of the possessive, and that of an other case, before the participle; or between the participial and the substantive use of words in ing. Dr. Priestley, to whom, as well as to Dr. Lowth, most of our grammarians are indebted for some of their doctrines respecting this sort of derivatives, pretends to distinguish them, both as constituting different parts of speech, and as conveying different meanings. In one place, he says, "When a word ending in ing is preceded by an article, it seems to be used as a noun; and therefore ought not to govern an other word, without the intervention of a preposition."—Priestley's Gram., p. 157. And in an other: "Many nouns are derived from verbs, and end in ing, like participles of the present tense. The difference between these nouns and participles is often overlooked, and the accurate distinction of the two senses not attended to. If I say, What think you of my horse's running to-day, I use the NOUN running, and suppose the horse to have actually run; for it is the same thing as if I had said, What think you of the running of my horse. But if I say, What think you of my horse running to-day, I use the PARTICIPLE, and I mean to ask, whether it be proper that my horse should run or not: which, therefore, supposes that he had not then run."—Ib., p. 122. Whatever our other critics say about the horse running or the horse's running, they have in general borrowed from Priestley, with whom the remark originated, as it here stands. It appears that Crombie, Murray, Maunder, Lennie, Bullions, Ingersoll, Barnard, Hiley, and others, approve the doctrine thus taught, or at least some part of it; though some of them, if not all, thereby contradict themselves.
ODS. 37.—By the two examples here contrasted, Priestley designed to establish a distinction, not for these texts only, but for all similar expressions—a distinction both of the noun from the participle, and of the different senses which he supposed these two constructions to exhibit. In all this, there is a complete failure. Yet with what remarkable ductility and implicitness do other professed critics take for granted what this superficial philologer so hastily prescribes! By acknowledging with reference to such an application of them, that the two constructions above are both good English, our grammarians do but the more puzzle their disciples respecting the choice between them; just as Priestley himself was puzzled, when he said, "So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned, a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Gram., p. 70. Murray and others omit this "perhaps," and while they allow both forms to be good, decidedly prefer the latter; but neither Priestley, nor any of the rest, ever pretended to discern in these a difference of signification, or even of parts of speech. For my part, in stead of approving either of these readings about the "great exploit," I have rejected both, for reasons which have already been given; and now as to the first two forms of the horserace question, so far as they may strictly be taken for models, I cannot but condemn them also, and for the same reasons: to which reasons may be joined the additional one, that neither expression is well adapted to the sense which the author himself gives to it in his interpretation. If the Doctor designed to ask, "Do you think my horse ran well to-day?" or, "Do you think it proper for my horse to run to-day?" he ought to have used one or the other of these unequivocal and unobjectionable expressions. There is in fact between the others, no such difference of meaning as he imagines; nor does he well distinguish "the NOUN running" from the PARTICIPLE runnning; because he apparently allows the word, in both instances, to be qualified by the adverb to-day.[422]
OBS. 38.—It is clear, that the participle in ing partakes sometimes the nature of its verb and an adjective; so that it relates to a noun, like an adjective, and yet implies time, and, if transitive, governs an object, like a verb: as, "Horses running a race." Hence, by dropping what here distinguishes it as a participle, the word may become an adjective, and stand before its noun; as, "A running brook." So, too, this participle sometimes partakes the nature of its verb and a noun; so that it may be governed by a preposition, like a noun, though in itself it has no cases or numbers, but is indeclinable: as "In running a race." Hence, again, by dropping what distinguishes it as a participle, it may become a noun; as, "Running is a safer sport than wrestling." Now, if to a participle we prefix something which makes it an adjective, we also take away its regimen, by inserting a preposition; as, "A doctrine _un_deserving of praise,"—"A man _un_compromising in his principles." So, if we put before it an article, an adjective, or a possessive, and thus give to the participle a substantive character or relation, there is reason to think, that we ought, in like manner, to take away its regimen, and its adverb too, if it have any, and be careful also to distinguish this noun from the participial adjective; as, "The running of a race,"—"No racing of horses,"—"Your deserving of praise."—"A man's compromising of his principles." With respect to the articles, or any adjectives, it seems now to be generally conceded, that these are signs of substantives; and that, if added to participles, they must cause them to be taken, in all respects, substantively. But with respect to possessives before participles, the common practice of our writers very extensively indulges the mixed construction of which I have said so much, and concerning the propriety of which, the opinions of our grammarians are so various, so confused, and so self-contradictory.
OBS. 39.—Though the participle with a nominative or an objective before it, is not in general, equivalent to the verbal noun or the mixed participle with a possessive before it; and though the significations of the two phrases are often so widely different as to make it palpably absurd to put either for the other; yet the instances are not few in which it makes little or no difference to the sense, which of the two forms we prefer, and therefore, in these instances, I would certainly choose the more simple and regular construction; or, where a better than either can readily be found, reject both. It is also proper to have some regard to the structure of other languages, and to the analogy of General Grammar. If there be "some late writers" who are chargeable with "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," there are perhaps more who as idly affect what they suppose "consonant with the genius of our language." I allude to those who would prefer the possessive case in a text like the following: "Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?"'—1 Kings, i, 41. "Quid sibi vult clamor civitatis tumultuantis?"—Vulgate. "[Greek: Gis hæ phonæ tæs poleos æchousæs];"—Septuagint. Literally: "What [means] the clamour of the city resounding?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui est ainsi émue?"—French Bible. Literally: "What means this noise of the city which is so moved?" Better English: "What means this noise with which the city rings?" In the following example, there is a seeming imitation of the foregoing Latin or Greek construction; but it may well be doubted whether it would be any improvement to put the word "disciples" in the possessive case; nor is it easy to find a third form which would be better than these: "Their difficulties will not be increased by the intended disciples having ever resided in a Christian country."—West's Letters, p. 119.
OBS. 40.—It may be observed of these different relations between participles and other words, that nouns are much more apt to be put in the nominative or the objective case, than are pronouns. For example: "There is no more of moral principle in the way of abolitionists nominating their own candidates, than in that of their voting for those nominated by others."—GERRIT SMITH: Liberator, Vol. X, p. 17. Indeed, a pronoun of the nominative or the objective case is hardly ever used in such a relation, unless it be so obviously the leading word in sense, as to preclude all question about the construction.[423] And this fact seems to make it the more doubtful, whether it be proper to use nouns in that manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered the leading word in sense, we are at least under no necessity of subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought desirable to vary the foregoing example, it may easily be done, thus: "There is no more of moral principle to prevent abolitionists from nominating their own candidates, than to prevent them from voting for those nominated by others." The following example is much like the preceding, but less justifiable: "We see comfort, security, strength, pleasure, wealth, and prosperity, all flowing from men combining together; and misery, weakness, and poverty, ensuing from their acting separately or in opposition to each other."—West's Letters, p. 133. Say rather,—"from men's combining-together," or, "from the just combination of men in society;" and,—"from their separate action, or their opposition to one an other." Take an other example: "If illorum be governed here of negotii, it must be in this order, gratia negotii illorum videndi; and this is, for the sake of their business being seen, and not, for the sake of them being seen."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 352. Here the learned critic, in disputing Perizonius's resolution of the phrase, "illorum videndi gratiâ" has written disputable English. But, had he affected the Latin idiom, a nearer imitation of it would have been,—"for the sake of their business's being seen, and not for the sake of their being seen." Or nearer still,—"for the sake of seeing of their business, and not, for the sake of seeing of them." An elegant writer would be apt to avoid all these forms, and say,—"for the sake of seeing their business;" and,—"for the sake of seeing them;" though the former phrase, being but a version of bad Latin, makes no very good sense in any way.
OBS. 41.—Idioms, or peculiarities of expression, are never to be approved or valued, but according to their convenience, utility, or elegance. By this rule, some phrases that are not positively barbarous, may yet be ungrammatical, and a construction that is sometimes allowable, may yet be quite unworthy to be made or reckoned, "the common mode of expression." Thus, in Latin, the infinitive verb is occasionally put for a noun, and taken to signify a property possessed; as, "Tuum scire, [thy to know,] the same as tua scientia, thy knowledge. Pers."—Adam's Gram., p. 153. So, in English, the participle in ing is often taken substantively, when it does not actually become a substantive or noun; as, "Thy knowing this,"—"Our doing so."—West. Such forms of speech, because they are idiomatical, seldom admit of any literal translation, and are never naturalized by any transfer from one language or dialect into an other; nor is it proper for grammarians to justify them, in vernacular speech, except as figures or anomalies that ought not to be generally imitated. It cannot be truly affirmed, that the genius of our language ever requires that participles, as such, should assume the relations of a noun, or govern the possessive case; nor, on the other hand, can it be truly denied, that very excellent and learned writers do sometimes make use of such phraseology. Without disrespect to the many users and approvers of these anomalies, I set down for bad English every mixed construction of the participle, for which the language can furnish an equivalent expression that is more simple and more elegant. The extent to which these comparative barbarisms now abound in English books, and the ridiculous fondness for them, which has been shown by some writers on English grammar, in stead of amounting to any argument in their favour, are in fact, plain proofs of the necessity of an endeavour to arrest so obvious and so pernicious an innovation.
OBS. 42.—A late author observes as follows: "That the English gerund, participle, or verbal noun, in ing, has both an active and a passive signification, there can be little doubt.[424] Whether the Latin gerund has precisely a similar import, or whether it is only active, it may be difficult, and, indeed, after all, it is not of much moment, to ascertain."—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 234. The gerund in Latin most commonly governs the case of its own verb, as does the active participle, both in Latin and English: as, "Efferor studio patres vestros videndi. Cic. de sen. 23."—Lily's Gram., p. 96. That is, "I am transported, with a desire of seeing your fathers." But sometimes we find the gerund taken substantively and made to govern the genitive. Or,—to adopt the language of an old grammarian:—"Interdum non invenustè additur gerundiis in di etiam genitivus pluralis: ut, 'Quum illorum videndi gratiâ me in forum contulissem.'—'Novarum [qui] spectandi faciunt copiam.' Ter. Heaut. prol. 29."—Lily's Gram., p. 97. That is, "To gerunds in di there is sometimes not inelegantly added a genitive plural: as, 'When, for the sake of seeing of them, I went into the forum.'—'Who present an opportunity of attending of new ones:' i.e., new comedies." Here the of which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers do now and then adopt this idiom. The gerund thus governing the genitive, is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for the subject of the being or action, but for what would otherwise be the object of the gerund, or of the participle, as may be seen above. The objection to the participle as governing the possessive, is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed. R. Johnson, like many others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective, and has merely a preposition before it; as, "For the sake of seeing them. Where seeing (says he) is a Substantive."—Gram. Com., p. 353.
OBS. 43.—If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the agent, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective. But I have before observed that no such analogy appears. The following example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the genitive of the agent: "Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est—Cic."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 236. That is, (as I understand it,) "But in whose speaking something is reprehended." This seems to me a case in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so. But a single example is not sufficient. If the doctrine is true, there must be others. In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that cujus is here governed by aliquid, and not by the gerund. "Here," says Grant, "I am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the liberty to use, 'That, for the sake of euphony, the gerund is sometimes found governing the genitive of the patient, or subject [say object] of the action, is unquestionable: thus, studio videndi patrum vestrorum. [That is, literally, By a desire of seeing of your fathers.] But I recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the patient, but the agent; as, dicendum meum, ejus dicendum, cujus dicendum. [That is, my speaking, his speaking, whose speaking.] In truth, these phraseologies appear to me, not only repugnant to the idiom of the language, but also unfavourable to precision and perspicuity.'"—Grant's Latin Gram., 8vo, p. 236.
OBS. 44.—Of that particular distinction between the participle and the participial noun, which depends on the insertion or omission of the article and the preposition of, a recent grammarian of considerable merit adopts the following views: "This double nature of the participle has led to much irregularity in its use. Thus we find, 'indulging which,' 'indulging of which,' 'the indulging which,' and 'the indulging of which,' used indiscriminately. Lowth very properly instructs us, either to use both the article and the preposition with the participle; as, 'the indulging of which:' or to reject both; as, 'indulging which:' thus keeping the verbal and substantive forms distinct. But he is wrong, as Dr. Crombie justly remarks, in considering these two modes of expression as perfectly similar. Suppose I am told, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in hearing Fawcet:' I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Bloomfield great pleasure. But were it said, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in the hearing of Fawcet:' I should be led to conclude merely that the orator was within hearing, when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt from something, about which I have no information. Accordingly Dr. Crombie suggests as a general rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing something, the article should be inserted before the participle, and the preposition after it; and, when the noun is passive, or represents the object of an action, both the article and the preposition should be omitted:[425] agreeably to the examples just adduced. It is true, that when the noun following the participle denotes something incapable of the action the participle expresses, no mistake can arise from using either form: as, 'The middle condition seems to be the most advantageously situate for the gaining of wisdom. Poverty turns our thoughts too much upon the supplying of our wants; and riches, upon enjoying our superfluities.' Addison, Spect., 464. Yet I cannot think it by any means a commendable practice, thus to jumble together different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as the two modes of expression have different significations, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr. Crombie's rule, even when no mistake could arise from interchanging them."—Churchill's Gram., p. 319.
OBS. 45.—The two modes of expression which these grammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, are the same that Lindley Murray and his copyists suppose to be generally equivalent, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do "not in every instance convey the same meaning." (See Obs. 27th above.) If Dr. Lowth considered them "as perfectly similar," he was undoubtedly very wrong in this matter: though not more so than these gentlemen, who resolve to interpret them as being perfectly and constantly dissimilar. Dr. Adam says, "There are, both in Latin and [in] English, substantives derived from the verb, which so much resemble the Gerund in their signification, that frequently they may be substituted in its place. They are generally used, however, in a more undetermined sense than the Gerund, and in English, have the article always[426] prefixed to them. Thus, with the gerund, Detector legendo Ciceronem, I am delighted with reading Cicero. But with the substantive, Delector lectione Ciceronis, I am delighted with the reading of Cicero."—Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 142. "Gerunds are so called because they, as it were, signify the thing in gerendo, (anciently written gerundo,) in doing; and, along with the action, convey an idea of the agent."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 70; Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 353. "The reading of Cicero," does not necessarily signify an action of which Cicero is the agent, as Crombie, Churchill, and Hiley choose to expound it; and, since the gerundive construction of words in ing ought to have a definite reference to the agent or subject of the action or being, one may perhaps amend even some of their own phraseology above, by preferring the participial noun: as, "No mistake can arise from the using of either form."—"And riches [turn our thoughts too much] upon the enjoying of our superfluities."—"Even when no mistake could arise from the interchanging of them." Where the agent of the action plainly appears, the gerundive form is to be preferred on account of its brevity; as, "By the observing of truth, you will command respect;" or, "By observing truth, &c."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 189. Here the latter phraseology is greatly preferable, though this author did not perceive it. "I thought nothing was to be done by me before the giving of you thanks."—Walker's Particles, p. 63. Say,—"before giving you thanks;" for otherwise the word thanks has no proper construction, the pronoun alone being governed by of—and here again is an error; for "you" ought to be the object of to.
OBS. 46.—In Hiley's Treatise, a work far more comprehensive than the generality of grammars, "the established principles and best usages of the English" Participle are so adroitly summed up, as to occupy only two pages, one in Etymology, and an other in Syntax. The author shows how the participle differs from a verb, and how from an adjective; yet he neither makes it a separate part of speech, nor tells us with what other it ought to be included. In lieu of a general rule for the parsing of all participles, he presents the remark, "Active transitive participles, like their verbs, govern the objective case; as, 'I am desirous of hearing him;' 'Having praised them, he sat down.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 93. This is a rule by which one may parse the few objectives which are governed by participles; but, for the usual construction of participles themselves, it is no rule at all; neither does the grammar, full as it is, contain any. "Hearing" is here governed by of, and "Having praised" relates to he; but this author teaches neither of these facts, and the former he expressly contradicts by his false definition of a preposition. In his first note, is exhibited, in two parts, the false and ill-written rule which Churchill quotes from Crombie. (1.) "When the noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing something, the participle must have an article before it, and the preposition of after it; as, 'In the hearing of the philosopher;' or, 'In the philosopher's hearing;' 'By the preaching of Christ;' or, 'By Christ's preaching.' In these instances," says Hiley, "the words hearing and preaching are substantives." If so, he ought to have corrected this rule, which twice calls them participles; but, in stead of doing that, he blindly adds, by way of alternative, two examples which expressly contradict what the rule asserts. (2.) "But when the noun represents the object of an action, the article and the preposition of must be omitted; as, 'In hearing the philosopher.'"—Ib., p. 94. If this principle is right, my second note below, and most of the corrections under it, are wrong. But I am persuaded that the adopters of this rule did not observe how common is the phraseology which it condemns; as, "For if the casting-away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"—Rom., xi, 15. Finally, this author rejects the of which most critics insert when a possessive precedes the verbal noun; justifies and prefers the mixed or double construction of the participle; and, consequently, neither wishes nor attempts to distinguish the participle from the verbal noun. Yet he does not fail to repeat, with some additional inaccuracy, the notion, that, "What do you think of my horse's running? is different to [say from,] What do you think of my horse running?"—Ib., p. 94.
OBS. 47.—That English books in general, and the style of even our best writers, should seldom be found exempt from errors in the construction of participles, will not be thought wonderful, when we consider the multiplicity of uses to which words of this sort are put, and the strange inconsistencies into which all our grammarians have fallen in treating this part of syntax. It is useless, and worse than useless, to teach for grammar any thing that is not true; and no doctrine can be true of which one part palpably oversets an other. What has been taught on the present topic, has led me into a multitude of critical remarks, designed both for the refutation of the principles which I reject, and for the elucidation and defence of those which are presently to be summed up in notes, or special rules, for the correction of false syntax. If my decisions do not agree with the teaching of our common grammarians, it is chiefly because these authors contradict themselves. Of this sort of teaching I shall here offer but one example more, and then bring these strictures to a close: "When present participles are preceded by an article, or pronoun adjective, they become nouns, and must not be followed by objective pronouns, or nouns without a preposition; as, the reading of many books wastes the health. But such nouns, like all others, may be used without an article, being sufficiently discovered by the following preposition; as, he was sent to prepare the way, by preaching of repentance. Also an article, or pronoun adjective, may precede a clause, used as a noun, and commencing with a participle; as, his teaching children was necessary."—Dr. Wilson's Syllabus of English Gram., p. xxx. Here the last position of the learned doctor, if it be true, completely annuls the first; or, if the first be true, the last must needs be false, And, according to Lowth, L. Murray, and many others, the second is as bad as either. The bishop says, concerning this very example, that by the use of the preposition of after the participle preaching, "the phrase is rendered obscure and ambiguous: for the obvious meaning of it, in its present form, is, 'by preaching concerning repentance, or on that subject;' whereas the sense intended is, 'by publishing the covenant of repentance, and declaring repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God.'"—Lowth's Gram., p. 82. "It ought to be, 'by the preaching of repentance;' or, by preaching repentance."—Murray's Gram., p. 193.
NOTES TO RULE XX.
NOTE I.—Active participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived; the preposition of, therefore, should never be used after the participle, when the verb does not require it. Thus, in phrases like the following, of is improper: "Keeping of one day in seven;"—"By preaching of repentance;"—"They left beating of Paul."
NOTE II.—When a transitive participle is converted into a noun, of must be inserted to govern the object following; as, "So that there was no withstanding of him."—Walker's Particles. p. 252. "The cause of their salvation doth not so much arise from their embracing of mercy, as from God's exercising of it"—Penington's Works, Vol. ii, p. 91. "Faith is the receiving of Christ with the whole soul."—Baxter. "In thy pouring-out of thy fury upon Jerusalem."—Ezekiel, ix, 8.
NOTE III.—When the insertion of the word of, to complete the conversion of the transitive participle into a noun, produces ambiguity or harshness, some better phraseology must be chosen. Example: "Because the action took place prior to the taking place of the other past action."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 140. Here the words prior and place have no regular construction; and if we say, "prior to the taking of place of the other," we make the jumble still worse. Say therefore, "Because the action took place before the other past action;"—or, "Because the action took place previously to the other past action."
NOTE IV.—When participles become nouns, their adverbs should either become adjectives, or be taken as parts of such nouns, written as compound words: or, if neither of these methods be agreeable, a greater change should be made. Examples of error: 1. "Rightly understanding a sentence, depends very much on a knowledge of its grammatical construction."—Comly's Gram., 12th Ed., p. 8. Say, "The right understanding of a sentence," &c. 2. "Elopement is a running away, or private departure."—Webster's El. Spelling-Book. p. 102. Write "running-away" as one word. 3. "If they [Milton's descriptions] have any faults, it is their alluding too frequently to matters of learning, and to fables of antiquity."—Blair's Rhet., p. 451. Say, "If they have any fault, it is that they allude too frequently," &c.
NOTE V.—When the participle is followed by an adjective, its conversion into a noun appears to be improper; because the construction of the adjective becomes anomalous, and its relation doubtful: as, "When we speak of 'ambition's being restless' or, 'a disease's being deceitful.'"—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 346; Kirkham's, p. 224. This ought to be, "When we speak of ambition as being restless, or a disease as being deceitful;" but Dr. Blair, from whom the text originally came, appears to have written it thus: "When we speak of ambition's being restless, or a disease being deceitful."—LECT. xvi, p. 155. This is inconsistent with itself; for one noun is possessive, and the other, objective. NOTE VI.—When a compound participle is converted into a noun, the hyphen seems to be necessary, to prevent ambiguity; but such compound nouns are never elegant, and it is in general better to avoid them, by some change in the expression. Example: "Even as the being healed of a wound, presupposeth the plaster or salve: but not, on the contrary; for the application of the plaster presupposeth not the being healed."—Barclays Works, Vol. i, p. 143. The phrase, "the being healed" ought to mean only, the creature healed; and not, the being-healed, or the healing received, which is what the writer intended. But the simple word healing might have been used in the latter sense; for, in participial nouns, the distinction of voice and of tense are commonly disregarded.
NOTE VII.—A participle should not be used where the infinitive mood, the verbal noun, a common substantive, or a phrase equivalent, will better express the meaning. Examples: 1. "But placing an accent on the second syllable of these words, would entirely derange them."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 239. Say rather, "But, to place an accent—But the placing of an accent—or, But an accent placed on the second syllable of these words, would entirely derange them." 2. "To require their being in that case."—Ib., Vol. ii, p. 21. Say, "To require them to be in that case." 3. "She regrets not having read it."—West's Letters, p. 216. Say, "She regrets that she has not read it." Or, "She does not regret that she has read it." For the text is equivocal, and admits either of these senses.
NOTE VIII.—A participle used for a nominative after be, is, was, &c., produces a construction which is more naturally understood to be a compound form of the verb; and which is therefore not well adapted to the sense intended, when one tells what something is, was, or may be. Examples: 1. "Whose business is shoeing animals."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 365. Say, "Whose business it is, to shoe animals;"—or, "Whose business is the shoeing of animals." 2. "This was in fact converting the deposite to his own use."—Murray's Key, ii, p. 200. Say rather, "This was in fact a converting of the deposite to his own use."—Ib.
NOTE IX.—Verbs of preventing should be made to govern, not the participle in ing, nor what are called substantive phrases, but the objective case of a noun or pronoun; and if a participle follow, it ought to be governed by the preposition from: as, "But the admiration due to so eminent a poet, must not prevent us from remarking some other particulars in which he has failed."—Blair's Rhet., p. 438. Examples of error: 1. "I endeavoured to prevent letting him escape"—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 150. Say,—"to prevent his escape." 2. "To prevent its being connected with the nearest noun."—Churchill's Gram., p. 367. Say, "To prevent it from being connected," &c. 3. "To prevent it bursting out with open violence."—Robertson's America, Vol. ii, p. 146. Say, "To prevent it from bursting out," &c. 4. "To prevent their injuring or murdering of others."—Brown's Divinity, p. 26. Say rather, "To prevent them from injuring or murdering others."
NOTE X.—In the use of participles and of verbal nouns, the leading word in sense should always be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and where there is reason to doubt whether the possessive case or some other ought to come before the participle, it is better to reject both, and vary the expression. Examples: "Any person may easily convince himself of the truth of this, by listening to foreigners conversing in a language [which] he does not understand."—Churchill's Gram., p. 361. "It is a relic of the ancient style abounding with negatives."—Ib., p. 367. These forms are right; though the latter might be varied, by the insertion of "which abounds" for "abounding." But the celebrated examples before cited, about the "lady holding up her train," or the "lady's holding up her train,"—the "person dismissing his servant," or the "person's dismissing his servant,"—the "horse running to-day," or the "horse's running to-day,"—and many others which some grammarians suppose to be interchangeable, are equally bad in both forms.
NOTE XI.—Participles, in general, however construed, should have a clear reference to the proper subject of the being, action, or passion. The following sentence is therefore faulty: "By establishing good laws, our peace is secured."—Russell's Gram., p. 88; Folker's, p. 27. Peace not being the establisher of the laws, these authors should have said, "By establishing good laws, we secure our peace." "There will be no danger of spoiling their faces, or of gaining converts."—Murray's Key, ii, p. 201. This sentence is to me utterly unintelligible. If the context were known, there might possibly be some sense in saying, "They will be in no danger of spoiling their faces," &c. "The law is annulled, in the very act of its being made."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 267. "The act of MAKING a law," is a phrase intelligible; but, "the act of its BEING MADE," is a downright solecism—a positive absurdity.
NOTE XII.—A needless or indiscriminate use of participles for nouns, or of nouns for participles, is inelegant, if not improper, and ought therefore to be avoided. Examples: "Of denotes possession or belonging."— Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 118; Ingersoll's, 71. "The preposition of, frequently implies possession, property, or belonging to."—Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram., p. 137. Say, "Of frequently denotes possession, or the relation of property." "England perceives the folly of the denying of such concessions."—Nixon's Parser, p. 149. Expunge the and the last of, that denying may stand as a participle.
NOTE XIII.—Perfect participles being variously formed, care should be taken to express them agreeably to the best usage, and also to distinguish them from the preterits of their verbs, where there is any difference of form. Example: "It would be well, if all writers who endeavour to be accurate, would be careful to avoid a corruption at present so prevalent, of saying, it was wrote, for, it was written; he was drove, for, he was driven; I have went, for, I have gone, &c., in all which instances a verb is absurdly used to supply the proper participle, without any necessity from the want of such word."—Harris's Hermes, p. 186.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XX.
EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.—EXPUNGE OF.
"In forming of his sentences, he was very exact."—Error noticed by
Murray, Vol. i, p. 194.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the preposition of is used after the participle forming, whose verb does not require it. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 20th, "Active participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived; the preposition of, therefore, should not be used after the participle, when the verb does not require it." Therefore, of should be omitted; thus, "In forming his sentences, he was very exact."]
"For not believing of which I condemn them"—Barclay's Works, iii. 354. "To prohibit his hearers from reading of that book."—Ib., i, 223. "You will please them exceedingly, in crying down of ordinances."—MITCHELL: ib., i, 219. "The war-wolf subsequently became an engine for casting of stones,"—Constable's Miscellany, xxi, 117. "The art of dressing of hides and working in leather was practised."—Ib., xxi, 101. "In the choice they had made of him, for restoring of order."—Rollin's Hist., ii, 37. "The Arabians exercised themselves by composing of orations and poems."—Sale's Koran, p. 17. "Behold, the widow-woman was there gathering of sticks."—1 Kings, xvii, 10. "The priests were busied in offering of burnt-offerings."—2 Chron., xxxv, 14. "But Asahel would not turn aside from following of him."—2 Sam., ii, 21. "He left off building of Ramah, and dwelt in Tirzah."—1 Kings, xv, 21. "Those who accuse us of denying of it, belie us."—Barclay's Works, iii, 280. "And breaking of bread from house to house."—Ib., i, 192. "Those that set about repairing of the walls."—Ib., i, 459. "And secretly begetting of divisions."—Ib., i, 521. "Whom he had made use of in gathering of his church."—Ib., i, 535. "In defining and distinguishing of the acceptions and uses of those particles."—Walker's Particles, p. 12.
"In punishing of this, we overthrow
The laws of nations, and of nature too."—Dryden, p. 92.
UNDER NOTE II.—ARTICLES REQUIRE OF.
"The mixing them makes a miserable jumble of truth and fiction."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 357. "The same objection lies against the employing statues."—Ib., ii, 358. "More efficacious than the venting opulence upon the Fine Arts."—Ib., Vol. i, p. viii. "It is the giving different names to the same object."—Ib., ii, 19. "When we have in view the erecting a column."—Ib., ii, 56. "The straining an elevated subject beyond due bounds, is a vice not so frequent."—Ib., i, 206. "The cutting evergreens in the shape of animals is very ancient."—Ib., ii, 327. "The keeping juries, without meet, drink or fire, can be accounted for only on the same idea."—Webster's Essays, p. 301. "The writing the verbs at length on his slate, will be a very useful exercise."—Beck's Gram., p. 20. "The avoiding them is not an object of any moment."—Sheridan's Lect., p. 180. "Comparison is the increasing or decreasing the Signification of a Word by degrees."—British Gram., p. 97. "Comparison is the Increasing or Decreasing the Quality by Degrees."—Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 27. "The placing a Circumstance before the Word with which it is connected, is the easiest of all Inversion."—Ib., p. 140. "What is emphasis? It is the emitting a stronger and fuller sound of voice," &c.—Bradley's Gram., p. 108. "Besides, the varying the terms will render the use of them more familiar."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 25. "And yet the confining themselves to this true principle, has misled them!"—Horne Tooke's Diversions, Vol. i, p. 15. "What is here commanded, is merely the relieving his misery."—Wayland's Moral Science, p. 417. "The accumulating too great a quantity of knowledge at random, overloads the mind instead of adorning it."—Formey's Belles-Lettres, p. 5. "For the compassing his point."—Rollin's Hist., ii, 35. "To the introducing such an inverted order of things."—Butler's Analogy, p. 95. "Which require only the doing an external action."—Ib., p. 185. "The imprisoning my body is to satisfy your wills."—GEO. FOX: Sewel's Hist., p. 47. "Who oppose the conferring such extensive command on one person."—Duncan's Cicero, p. 130. "Luxury contributed not a little to the enervating their forces."—Sale's Koran, p. 49. "The keeping one day of the week for a sabbath."—Barclay's Works, i. 202. "The doing a thing is contrary to the forbearing of it."—Ib., i, 527. "The doubling the Sigma is, however, sometimes regular."—Knight, on the Greek Alphabet, p. 29. "The inserting the common aspirate too, is improper."—Ib., p. 134. "But in Spenser's time the pronouncing the ed seems already to have been something of an archaism."—Philological Museum, Vol. i, p. 656. "And to the reconciling the effect of their verses on the eye."—Ib., i, 659. "When it was not in their power to hinder the taking the whole."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 155. "He had indeed given the orders himself for the shutting the gates."—Ibid. "So his whole life was a doing the will of the Father."—Penington, iv, 99. "It signifies the suffering or receiving the action expressed."—Priestley's Gram., p. 37. "The pretended crime therefore was the declaring himself to be the Son of God."—West's Letters, p. 210. "Parsing is the resolving a sentence into its different parts of speech."—Beck's Gram., p. 26.