The Grammar of English Grammars Part 291

[196] The latter part of this awkward and complex rule was copied from Lowth's Grammar, p. 101. Dr. Ash's rule is, "_p.r.o.nouns_ must _always agree_ with the _nouns_ for which they _stand_, or to which they _refer_, in _Number, person_, and _gender_."--_Grammatical Inst.i.tutes_, p. 54. I quote this _exactly as it stands_ in the book: the Italics are his, not mine.

Roswell C. Smith appears to be ignorant of the change which Murray made in his fifth rule: for he still publishes as Murray's a principle of concord which the latter rejected as early as 1806: "RULE V. Corresponding with Murray's Grammar, RULE V. _p.r.o.nouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number_, AND PERSON."--_Smith's New Gram._, p. 130.

So _Allen Fisk_, in his "Murray's English Grammar Simplified," p. 111; _Aaron M. Merchant_, in his "_Abridgment_ of Murray's English Grammar, Revised, _Enlarged_ and Improved," p. 79; and the _Rev. J. G. Cooper_, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," p. 113; where, from the t.i.tles, every reader would expect to find the latest doctrines of Murray, and not what he had so long ago renounced or changed.

[197] L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 51; 12mo, 51; 18mo, 22; D. Adams's, 37; Alger's, 21; Bacon's, 19; Fisk's, 20; Kirkham's, 17; Merchant's Murray, 35; Merchant's American Gram., 40; F. H. Miller's Gram., 26; Pond's, 28; S.

Putnam's, 22; Russell's, 16; Rev. T. Smith's, 22.

[198] Dr. Crombie, and some others, represent I and thou, with their inflections, as being "masculine and feminine." Lennie, M'Culloch, and others, represent them as being "masculine or feminine." But, if either of them can have an antecedent that is _neuter_, neither of these views is strictly correct. (See Obs. 5th, above.) Mackintosh says, "We use _our, your, their_, in speaking of a thing or things belonging to plural nouns of any gender."--_Essay on English Gram._, p. 149. So William Barnes says, "_I, thou, we, ye_ or _you_, and _they_, are of _all_ genders,"-- _Philosophical Gram._, p. 196.

[199] "It is perfectly plain, then, that _my_ and _mine_ are but different forms of the same word, as are _a_ and _an_. _Mine_, for the sake of euphony, or from custom, stands for the possessive case without a noun; but must be changed for _my_ when the noun is expressed: and _my_, for a similar reason, stands before a noun, but must be changed for _mine_ when the noun is dropped. * * * _Mine_ and _my, thine_ and _thy_, will, therefore, be considered in this book, as different forms of the possessive case from _I_ and _Thou_. And the same rule will be extended to _her_ and _hers, our_ and _ours, your_ and _yours, their_ and _theirs_."--_Barnard's a.n.a.lytic Grammar_, p. 142.

[200] It has long been fas.h.i.+onable, in the ordinary intercourse of the world, to subst.i.tute the plural form of this p.r.o.noun for the singular through all the cases. Thus, by the figure ENALLAGE, "_you are_," for instance, is commonly put for "_thou art_." See Observations 20th and 21st, below; also Figures of Syntax, in Part IV.

[201] The original nominative was _ye_, which is still the only nominative of the solemn style; and the original objective was _you_, which is still the only objective that our grammarians in general acknowledge. But, whether grammatical or not, _ye_ is now very often used, in a familiar way, for the objective case. (See Observations 22d and 23d, upon the declensions of p.r.o.nouns.) T. Dilworth gave both cases alike: "_Nom_. Ye _or_ you;"

"_Acc._ [or _Obj._] Ye _or_ you."--His _New Guide_, p. 98. Latham gives these forms: "_Nom._ ye _or_ you; _Obj._ you or ye."--_Elementary Gram._, p. 90. Dr. Campbell says, "I am inclined to prefer that use which makes _ye_ invariably the nominative plural of the personal p.r.o.noun _thou_, and _you_ the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 174. Professor Fowler touches the case, rather blindly, thus: "Instead of the true nominative YE, we use, with few exceptions, _the objective case_; as, 'YOU _speak_;' 'YOU _two are speaking_.' In this we _subst.i.tute_ one case _for_ another."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, --478. No other grammarian, however, discards _you_ as a nominative of "actual plurality;" and the present casual practice of putting _ye_ in the objective, has prevailed to some extent for at least two centuries: as,

"Your change approaches, when all these delights Will vanish and deliver _ye_ to woe."

--_Milton_, P. L., B. iv, l. 367.

[202] Dr. Young has, in one instance, and with very doubtful propriety, converted this p.r.o.noun into the _second person_, by addressing himself thus:--

"O _thou, myself I_ abroad our counsels roam And, like ill husbands, take no care at home."

--_Love of Fame_, Sat. II, l. 271.

[203] The fas.h.i.+on of using the plural number for the singular, or _you_ for _thou_, has also subst.i.tuted _yourself_ for _thyself_, in common discourse.

In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But _yourself_, like the regal compound _ourself_, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a p.r.o.noun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, _yourself is starving_." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, _to starve yourself_." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly a.s.sociated with the simple; as, "I _myself_ also _am_ a man."--_Acts_, x, 16. "That _thou thyself art_ a guide."--_Rom._, ii, 19. "If it stand, as _you yourself_ still _do_"--_Shakspeare_. "That _you yourself_ are much condemned."--_Id._ And, if the simple p.r.o.noun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is h.e.l.l; _myself am_ h.e.l.l."--_Milton_. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself _is_ all that I _can_ love."--_Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref._, p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself _were_ all that I _could_ love;" and, if his own is good English, the verb _is_ agrees with _all_, and not with _myself_. _Is_ is of the third person: hence, "_myself is_" or, "_yourself is_," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "_yourself art_," or, "_ourself am_," but rather, "_yourself are_:" as, "Captain, _yourself are_ the fittest."--_Dryden_. But to call this a "_concord_," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by a.n.a.logy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if _ourself_ and _yourself_ are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, "Your _self_ is sacred, profane _it_ not."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word _myself_ above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, _my self is all_ that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that _you_ and _your_ are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do _we, our_, and _us_, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, _we am, we was_, or _you was_, though some contend for this last construction.

[204] _Whose_ is sometimes used as the possessive case of _which_; as, "A religion _whose_ origin is divine."--_Blair_. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns.

[205] After _but_, as in the following sentence, the double relative _what_ is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent _to the friend who_:--

"Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find A friend, but _what_ has found a friend in thee."--_Young_.

[206] Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are _seldom used_, in modern style."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 54; also _Fisk's_, p.

65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as _one thing only_: "We _sometimes_ omit the _so_, and say, _whoever, whomever, whatever_, and even _whosever_. _It is_ a mere _abbreviation_. The _so_ is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."--_Eng. Gram._, -- 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "_They are not often used!_"--_New Gram._, p. 61.

[207] Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "_Mine_ and _thine_ appear to have been formed from _my_ and _thy_ by changing _y_ into _i_ and adding _n_, and then subjoining _e_ to retain the long sound of the vowel."--_a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon _Ic_ hath the possessive case _Min; Thu_, possessive _Thin; He_, possessive _His_: From which our possessive cases of the same p.r.o.nouns are taken _without alteration_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23.

[208] Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two cla.s.ses, and says, "_My, thy, our, your, her_, and _their_ signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * _Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs_, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of _adjectives_, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."--_Latham's Elementary E. Gram._, p. 94.

Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-and-by, adopting here an other odd opinion, takes the former cla.s.s only for forms of the possessive case; the latter he disposes of thus: "_Ours, yours, theirs, hers_, and generally _mine_ and _thine_, are POSSESSIVE p.r.o.nOUNS, used in either the _nominative or objective_ case,"--_Weld's Gram., Improved Ed._, p. 68. Not only denying the possessives with ellipsis to be instances of the possessive case, but stupidly mistaking at once two dissimilar things for a third which is totally unlike to either,--i. e., a.s.suming together for _subst.i.tution_ both an _ellipsis_ of one word and an _equivalence_ to two--(as some others more learned have very strangely done--) he supposes all this cla.s.s of p.r.o.nouns to have forsaken every property of their legitimate roots,--their person, their number, their gender, their case,--and to have a.s.sumed other properties, such as belong to "the thing possessed!" In the example, "_Your_ house is on the plain, _ours_ is on the hill," he supposes _ours_ to be of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; and not, as it plainly is, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. Such parsing should condemn forever any book that teaches it.

[209] This word should have been _numerals_, for two or three reasons. The author speaks of the _numeral adjectives_; and to say "the _numbers_ must agree in _number_ with their substantives," is tautological--G. Brown.

[210] Cardell a.s.sails the common doctrine of the grammarians on this point, with similar a.s.sertions, and still more earnestness. See his _Essay on Language_, p. 80. The notion that "these _pretended possessives_ [are]

uniformly used as _nominatives_ or _objectives_"--though demonstrably absurd, and confessedly repugnant to what is "_usually considered_" to be their true explanation--was adopted by Jaudon, in 1812; and has recently found several new advocates; among whom are Davis, Felch, Goodenow, Hazen, Smart, Weld, and Wells. There is, however, much diversity, as well as much inaccuracy, in their several expositions of the matter. Smart inserts in his declensions, as the only forms of the possessive case, the words of which he afterwards speaks thus: "The following _possessive cases_ of the personal p.r.o.nouns, (See page vii,) _must be called_ PERSONAL p.r.o.nOUNS POSSESSIVE: _mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs_. For these words are always used _substantively_, so as to include the meaning of some noun in the third person singular or plural, in the nominative or the objective ease. Thus, if _we are speaking_ of books, and say [,] '_Mine_ are here,'

_mine_ means _my books_, [Fist] and it must be deemed a personal p.r.o.noun _possessive_ in the _third_ person _plural_, and _nominative_ to the verb _are_."--_Smart's Accidence_, p. xxii. If to say, these "_possessive cases_ must be called a _cla.s.s_ of _p.r.o.nouns_, used _substantively_, and deemed _nominatives_ or _objectives_," is not absurd, then nothing can be. Nor is any thing in grammar more certain, than that the p.r.o.noun "_mine_" can only be used by the speaker or writer, to denote himself or herself as the owner of something. It is therefore of the _first_ person, _singular_ number, _masculine_ (or feminine) gender, and _possessive case_; being governed by the name of the thing or things possessed. This name is, of course, always _known_; and, if known and not expressed, it is "understood." For sometimes a word is repeated to the mind, and clearly understood, where "it cannot properly be" expressed; as, "And he came and sought _fruit_ thereon, and found _none_."--_Luke_, xiii, 6. Wells opposes this doctrine, citing a pa.s.sage from Webster, as above, and also imitating his argument. This author acknowledges three cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns--"personal, relative, and interrogative;" and then, excluding these words from their true place among personals of the possessive case, absurdly makes them a _supernumerary cla.s.s of possessive nominatives_ or _objectives_! "_Mine, thine, his_, _ours, yours_, and _theirs_, are POSSESSIVE p.r.o.nOUNS, used in construction either as _nominatives_ or _objectives_; as, 'Your pleasures are past, _mine_ are to come.' Here the word _mine_, which is used as a subst.i.tute for _my pleasures_, is _the subject_ of the verb _are_."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 71; 113 Ed., p. 78. Now the question to find the subject of the verb _are_, is, "My _what_ are to come?" Ans. "_pleasures_." But the author proceeds to argue in a note thus: "_Mine, thine_, etc. are often pa.r.s.ed as p.r.o.nouns in the possessive case, _and governed by nouns understood._ Thus, in the sentence, 'This book is mine,' the _word mine_ is said to _possess book_. That the word _book_ is _not here understood_, is obvious from the fact, that, when it is supplied, the phrase becomes not '_mine_ book,' but '_my_ book,' the p.r.o.noun being changed from _mine_ to _my_; so that we are made, by this practice, to pa.r.s.e _mine_ as _possessing a word_ understood, before which it cannot properly be used. The word _mine_ is here evidently employed as a subst.i.tute for the two words, _my_ and _book_."--_Wells, ibid._ This note appears to me to be, in many respects, faulty. In the first place, its whole design was, to disprove what is true. For, bating the mere difference of _person_, the author's example above is equal to this: "Your pleasures are past, _W. H. Wells's_ are to come." The ellipsis of "_pleasures_", is evident in both. But _ellipsis_ is not _subst.i.tution_; no, nor is _equivalence. Mine_, when it suggests an ellipsis of the governing noun, is _equivalent_ to _my and that noun_; but certainly, not "_a subst.i.tute for the two words_." It is a subst.i.tute, or p.r.o.noun, for the _name of the speaker or writer_; and so is _my_; both forms representing, and always agreeing with, that name or person only. No possessive agrees with what governs it; but every p.r.o.noun ought to agree with that for which it stands. Secondly, if the note above cited does not aver, in its first sentence, that the p.r.o.nouns in question _are "governed by nouns understood_," it comes much nearer to saying this, than a writer should who meant to deny it. In the third place, the example, "This book is mine," is not a good one for its purpose. The word "_mine_" may be regularly pa.r.s.ed as a possessive, without supposing any ellipsis; for "_book_," the name of the thing possessed, is given, and in obvious connexion with it. And further, the matter affirmed is _owners.h.i.+p_, requiring _different cases_; and not the _ident.i.ty_ of something under different names, which must be put in the _same case_. In the fourth place, to mistake regimen for possession, and thence speak of _one word "as possessing" an other_, a mode of expression occurring twice in the foregoing note, is not only unscholarlike, but positively absurd. But, possibly, the author may have meant by it, to ridicule the choice phraseology of the following Rule: "A noun or p.r.o.noun in the possessive case, is governed by _the noun it possesses_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 181; _Frazee's_, 1844, p. 25.

[211] In respect to the _numbers_, the following text is an uncouth exception: "Pa.s.s _ye_ away, _thou_ inhabitant of Saphir."--_Micah_, i, 11.

The singular and the plural are here strangely confounded. Perhaps the reading should be, "Pa.s.s _thou_ away, _O_ inhabitant of Saphir." Nor is the Bible free from _abrupt transitions_ from one number to the other, or from one person to an other, which are neither agreeable nor strictly grammatical; as, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, _ye which [who]_ are spiritual, restore such _an [a]_ one in the spirit of meekness; considering _thyself_, lest _thou_ also be tempted."--_Gal._, vi, 1. "_Ye_ that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch _themselves_ upon _their_ couches," &c--_Amos_, vi, 9.

[212] "The solemn style is used, chiefly, in the Bible and in prayer. The Society of Friends _retain it in common parlance_. It consists in using _thou_ in the singular number, and _ye_ in the plural, instead of using _you_ in both numbers as in the familiar style. * * * The third person singular [of verbs] ends with _th_ or _eth_, which affects only the present indicative, and _hath_ of the perfect. The second person, singular, ends with _st, est_, or _t_ only."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 58. "In [the] solemn and poetic styles, _mine, thine_, and _thy_, are used; and THIS _is the style adopted by the Friends' society_. In common discourse it appears very stiff and affected."--_Bartlett's C. S. Man'l_, Part II, p. 72.

[213] "And of the History of his being _tost_ in a Blanket, _he saith_, 'Here, Scriblerus, _thou lessest_ in what _thou a.s.sertest_ concerning the blanket: it was not a blanket, but a rug.--Curlliad, p. 25."--_Notes to Pope's Dunciad_, B. ii, verse 3. A vulgar idea solemnly expressed, is ludicrous. Uttered in familiar terms, it is simply vulgar: as, "_You lie_, Scriblerus, in what _you say_ about the blanket."

[214] "Notwithstanding these verbal mistakes, the Bible, for the size of it, is the most accurate grammatical composition that we have in the English language. The authority of several eminent grammarians might be adduced in support of this a.s.sertion, but it may be sufficient to mention only that of Dr. Lowth, who says, 'The present translation of the Bible, is _the best standard_ of the English language.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p.

166. I revere the Bible vastly too much to be pleased with an imitation of its peculiar style, in any man's ordinary speech or writing.--G. BROWN.

[215] "_Ye_, except in the solemn style, is _obsolete_; but it is used in the language of tragedy, to express contempt: as, 'When _ye_ shall know what Margaret knows, _ye_ may not be so thankful.' Franklin."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 57. "The second person plural had _formerly_ YE _both in the nominative and the objective._ This form is _now obsolete in the objective_, and nearly obsolete in the nominative."--_Hart's Gram._, p. 55.

[216] So has Milton:--

"To waste it all myself, and leave _ye_ none!

So disinherited how would _you_ bless me!"--_Par. Lost_, B. x, l. 820.

[217] "The word _what_ is a _compound of two specifying adjectives_, each, of course, referring to a noun, expressed or understood. It is equivalent to _the which_; _that which_; _which that_; or _that that_; used also in the plural. At different periods, and in different authors, it appears in the varying forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat_, _hwat_, and _what_. This word is found in other forms; but it is needless to multiply them."--_Cardell's Essay on Language_, p. 86.

[218] This author's distribution of the p.r.o.nouns, of which I have taken some notice in Obs. 10th above, is remarkable for its inconsistencies and absurdities. First he avers, "p.r.o.nouns are _generally_ divided into three kinds, the _Personal_, the _Adjective_, and the _Relative_ p.r.o.nouns. _They are all known by the lists._"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 96. These short sentences are far from being accurate, clear, or true. He should have made the several kinds known, by a good definition of each. But this was work to which he did not find himself adequate. And if we look to his _lists_ for the particular words of each kind, we shall get little satisfaction. Of the _Personal_ p.r.o.nouns, he says, "There are _five_ of them; _I, thou, he_, _she, it_."--_Ib._, p. 97. These are _simple_ words, and in their declension they are properly multiplied to forty. (See _Ib._, p. 99.) Next he seems to double the number, thus: "When _self_ is added to the personal p.r.o.nouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. _they_ are called _Compound Personal p.r.o.nouns_."--_Ib._, p. 99. Then he a.s.serts that _mine_, _thine, his, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, are compounds of _ne_ or _s_ with _mi, thi, hi_, &c.: that their application invariably "gives them a compound character:" and that, "They may, therefore, be properly denominated _Compound Personal p.r.o.nouns_."--_Ib._, p. 101. Next he comes to his _Adjective_ p.r.o.nouns; and, after proving that he has grossly misplaced and misnamed every one of them, he gives his lists of the three kinds of these. His _Relative_ p.r.o.nouns are _who, which_, and _that_. "_What_ is generally a _compound_ relative."--_Ib._, p. 111. The compounds of _who, which, and_ _what_, with _ever_ or _soever_, he calls "compound _p.r.o.nouns_, but not compound relatives."--_Ib._, pp. 110 and 112. Lastly he discovers, that, "Truth and simplicity" have been shamefully neglected in this his third section of p.r.o.nouns; that, "Of the words called '_relatives_,' _who_ only is a p.r.o.noun, and this is strictly _personal_;" that, "It ought to be cla.s.sed with the personal p.r.o.nouns;" and that, "_Which, that_, and _what_, are always adjectives. They _never stand for_, but always _belong to_ nouns, either expressed or implied."--_Ib._, p. 114. What admirable teachings are these!

[219] "It is now proper to give some _examples of the manner_ in which the learners should be exercised, in order to improve their knowledge, and to render it familiar to them. This is called _parsing_. The nature of the subject, as well as the adaptation of it to learners, requires _that it should be divided_ into two parts: viz. parsing, as it respects etymology alone; and parsing, as it respects both etymology and syntax."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, Vol. 1, p. 225. How very little real respect for the opinions of Murray, has been entertained by these self-seeking magnifiers and modifiers of his work!

What Murray calls "_Syntactical Parsing_" is sometimes called "_Construing_," especially by those who will have _Parsing_ to be nothing more than an etymological exercise. A late author says, "The practice of _Construing_ differs from that of parsing, in the extension of its objects.

Parsing merely indicates the parts of speech and their accidents, but construing searches for and points out their syntactical relations."--_D.

Blair's Gram._, p. 49.

Here the distinction which Murray judged to be necessary, is still more strongly marked and insisted on. And though I see no utility in restricting the word _Parsing_ to a mere description of the parts of speech with their accidents, and no impropriety in calling the latter branch of the exercise "_Syntactical Parsing_;" I cannot but think there is such a necessity for the division, as forms a very grave argument against those tangled schemes of grammar which do not admit of it. Blair is grossly inconsistent with himself. For, after drawing his distinction between Parsing and Construing, as above, he takes no further notice of the latter; but, having filled up seven pages with his most wretched mode of "PARSING," adds, in an emphatic note: "_The Teacher should direct the Pupil to_ CONSTRUE, IN THE SAME MANNER, _any pa.s.sage from_ MY CLa.s.s-BOOK, _or other Work, at the rate of three or four lines per day_."--_D. Blair's Gram._, p. 56.

[220] This is a comment upon the following quotation from Milton, where _Hers_ for _His_ would be a gross barbarism:--

"Should intermitted vengeance arm again _His_ red right hand to plague us."--_Par. Lost_, B. ii, l. 174.

[221] The Imperfect Participle, _when simple_, or when taken as one of the four princ.i.p.al terms const.i.tuting the verb or springing from it, ends _always_ in _ing_. But, in a subsequent chapter, I include under this name the first participle of the pa.s.sive verb; and this, in our language, is always a compound, and the latter term of it does not end in _ing_: as, "In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of adjectives _being compared_ whose signification admits neither intension nor remission."--CROMBIE, _on Etym. and Syntax_, p. 106. According to most of our writers on English grammar, the Present or Imperfect Participle Pa.s.sive is _always_ a compound of _being_ and the form of the perfect participle: as, _being loved, being seen_. But some represent it to have _two_ forms, one of which is always simple; as, "PERFECT Pa.s.sIVE, obeyed _or_ being obeyed."--_Sanborn's a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 55. "Loved _or_ being loved."--_Parkhurst's Grammar for Beginners_, p. 11; _Greene's a.n.a.lysis_, p. 225. "Loved, or, _being_ loved."--_Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 83. I here concur with the majority, who in no instance take the participle in _ed_ or _en_, alone, for the Present or Imperfect.

[222] In the following example, "_he_" and "_she_" are converted into verbs; as "_thou_" sometimes is, in the writings of Shakspeare, and others: "Is it not an impulse of selfishness or of a depraved nature to _he_ and _she_ inanimate objects?"--_Cutler's English Gram._, p. 16. Dr. Bullions, who has heretofore published several of the worst definitions of the verb anywhere extant, has now perhaps one of the best: "A VERB is a word used to express the _act, being_, or _state_ of its subject. "--_a.n.a.lyt. & Pract.

Gram._, p. 59. Yet it is not very obvious, that "_he_" and "_she_" are here verbs under this definition. Dr. Mandeville, perceiving that "the usual definitions of the verb are extremely defective," not long ago helped the schools to the following: "A verb is a word which describes _the state or condition_ of a _noun or p.r.o.noun_ in relation to _time_,"--_Course of Reading_, p. 24. Now it is plain, that under this definition too, Cutler's infinitives, "to _he_ and _she_" cannot be verbs; and, in my opinion, very small is the number of words that can be. No verb "describes the state or condition of a _noun or p.r.o.noun_," except in some form of _parsing_; nor, even in this sort of exercise, do I find any verb "which describes the state or condition" of such a word "_in relation to time_." Hence, I can make of this definition nothing but nonsense. Against my definition of a verb, this author urges, that it "excludes neuter verbs, expresses _no relation_ to subject or time, and uses terms in a vague or contradictory sense."--_Ib._, p. 25. The first and the last of these three allegations do not appear to be well founded; and the second, if infinitives are verbs, indicates an excellence rather than a fault. The definition a.s.sumes that the mind as well as the body may "_act_" or "_be acted upon_." For this cause, Dr. Mandeville, who cannot conceive that "_to be loved_" is in any wise "_to be acted upon_," p.r.o.nounces it "fatally defective!" His argument is a little web of sophistry, not worth unweaving here. One of the best scholars cited in the reverend Doctor's book says, "Of mental powers we have _no conception_, but as certain capacities of _intellectual action_."

And again, he asks, "Who can be conscious of _judgment, memory_, and _reflection_, and doubt that man was made _to act_!"--EVERETT: _Course of Reading_, p. 320.

[223] Dr. Johnson says, "English verbs are active, as _I love_; or neuter, as _I languish_. The neuters are formed like the actives. The pa.s.sive voice is formed by joining the participle preterit to the substantive verb, as _I am loved_." He also observes, "Most verbs signifying _action_ may likewise signify _condition_ or _habit_, and become _neuters_; as, _I love_, I am in love; _I strike_, I am now striking."--_Gram. with his Quarto Dict._, p. 7.

[224] The doctrine here referred to, appears in both works in the very same words: to wit, "English Verbs are either Active, Pa.s.sive, or Neuter. There are two sorts of Active Verbs, viz. _active-transitive_ and _active-intransitive_ Verbs."--_British Gram._, p. 153; _Buchanan's_, 56.

Buchanan was in this case the copyist.

[225] "The distinction between verbs absolutely neuter, as _to sleep_, and verbs active intransitive, as _to walk_, though _founded_ in NATURE _and_ TRUTH, is of little use in grammar. Indeed it would rather perplex than a.s.sist the learner; for the difference between verbs active and [verbs]

neuter, as transitive and intransitive, is easy and obvious; but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are]

intransitively active is not always clear. But however these latter may differ in nature, the construction of them both is the same; and grammar is not so much concerned with their _real_, as with their _grammatical_ properties."--_Lowth's Gram_; p. 30. But are not "TRUTH, NATURE, and REALITY," worthy to be preferred to any instructions that contradict them?

If they are, the good doctor and his worthy copyist have here made an ill choice. It is not only for the sake of these properties, that I retain a distinction which these grammarians, and others above named, reject; but for the sake of avoiding the untruth, confusion, and absurdity, into which one must fall by calling all active-intransitive verbs _neuter_. The distinction of active verbs, as being either transitive or intransitive, is also necessarily retained. But the suggestion, that this distinction is more "_easy and obvious_" than the other, is altogether an error. The really neuter verbs, being very few, occasion little or no difficulty. But very many active verbs, perhaps a large majority, are sometimes used intransitively; and of those which our lexicographers record as being always transitive, not a few are occasionally found without any object, either expressed or clearly suggested: as, "He _convinces_, but he does not _elevate nor animate_,"--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 242. "The child _imitates_, and _commits_ to memory; whilst the riper age _digests_, and thinks independently."--_Dr. Lieber, Lit. Conv._, p. 313. Of examples like these, three different views maybe taken; and it is _very questionable_ which is the right one: _First_, that these verbs are here _intransitive_, though they are not commonly so; _Second_, that they are _transitive_, and have objects understood; _Third_, that they are used _improperly_, because no determinate objects are given them. If we a.s.sume the second opinion or the last, the full or the correct expressions may be these: "He convinces _the judgement_, but he does not elevate _the imagination_, or animate _the feelings_."--"The child imitates _others_, and commits _words_ to memory; whilst the riper age digests _facts or truths_, and thinks independently."

These verbs are here transitive, but are they so above? Those grammarians who, supposing no other distinction important, make of verbs but two cla.s.ses, transitive and intransitive, are still as much at variance, and as much at fault, as others, (and often more so,) when they come to draw the line of this distinction. To "_require_" an objective, to "_govern_" an objective, to "_admit_" an objective, and to "_have_" an objective, are criterions considerably different. Then it is questionable, whether infinitives, participles, or sentences, must or can have the effect of objectives. One author says, "If a verb has any objective case _expressed_, it is transitive: if it has none, it is intransitive. _Verbs which_ appear transitive in their nature, may frequently be used intransitively."-- _Chandler's Old Gram._, p. 32; his _Common School Gram._, p. 48. An other says, "A transitive verb _a.s.serts_ action which does or can, terminate on some object."--_Frazee's Gram._, p. 29. An other avers, "There are two cla.s.ses of verbs _perfectly distinct_ from each other, viz: Those which _do_, and those which _do not_, govern an objective case." And his definition is, "A _Transitive Verb_ is one which _requires_ an _objective case_ after it."--_Hart's E. Gram._, p. 63. Both Frazee and Hart reckon the _pa.s.sive_ verb _transitive!_ And the latter teaches, that, "_Transitive_ verbs in English, are sometimes used _without an objective case_; as, The apple _tastes_ sweet!"--_Hart's Gram._, p, 73.

[226] In the hands of some gentlemen, "the Principles of Latin Grammar,"