The Grammar of English Grammars Part 297

The substantive is then in the _objective_ case, and may be called the _objective after the infinitive_, or _participle_; [as,] It is an honor to be the _author_ of such a work. His being a great _man_, did not make him a happy man. By being an obedient _child_, you will secure the approbation of your parents."--_Farnum's Practical Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 25. The first of these examples is elliptical; (see Obs. 12th above, and the Marginal Note;) the second is bad English,--or, at' any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for same cases; and the third pa.r.s.ed wrong by the rule: "_child_" is in the nominative case. See Obs. 7th above.

[362] When the preceding case is not "_the verb's nominative_" this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the word which is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, "_constructively follows_," in lieu of the phrase, "_comes after_."

[363] The author of this example supposes _friend_ to be in the nominative case, though _John's_ is in the possessive, and both words denote the same person. But this is not only contrary to the general rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules. Example: "_Maria's_ duty, as a _teacher_, is, to instruct her pupils." Here, he says, "_Teacher_ is in the _possessive_ case, from its relation to the name _Maria_, denoting the same object."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 211. This explanation, indeed, is scarcely intelligible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy. He means, however, that, "_Teacher_ is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name _Maria's_, the two words denoting the same object." No word can be possessive "from its relation to the name _Maria_," except by standing immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, "_Sterne's Maria_."

[364] Dr. Webster, who was ever ready to justify almost any usage for which he could find half a dozen respectable authorities, absurdly supposes, that _who_ may sometimes be rightly preferred to _whom_, as the object of a preposition. His remark is this: "In the use of _who_ as an interrogative, there is an _apparent deviation_ from regular construction--it being used _without distinction of case_; as, '_Who_ do you speak _to?_' '_Who_ is she married _to?_' '_Who_ is this reserved _for?_' '_Who_ was it made _by?_'

This _idiom_ is not merely colloquial: it is found in the writings of our best authors."--_Webster's Philosophical Gram._, p. 194; his _Improved Gram._, p. 136. "In this phrase, '_Who_ do you speak _to?_' there is a _deviation_ from regular construction; but the practice of thus using _who_, in certain familiar phrases, seems to be _established_ by the best authors."--_Webster's Rudiments of E. Gram._, p. 72. Almost any other solecism may be quite as well justified as this. The present work shows, in fact, a great ma.s.s of authorities for many of the incongruities which it ventures to rebuke.

[365] Grammarians differ much as to the proper mode of parsing such nouns.

Wells says, "This is _the case independent by ellipsis_."--_School Gram._, p. 123. But the idea of _such_ a case is a flat absurdity. Ellipsis occurs only where something, not uttered, is implied; and where a _preposition_ is thus wanting, the noun is, of course, its _object_; and therefore _not independent_. Webster, with too much contempt for the opinion of "Lowth, followed by the _whole tribe of writers_ on this subject," declares it "a palpable error," to suppose "prepositions to be understood before these expressions;" and, by two new rules, his 22d and 28th, teaches, that, "Names of measure or dimension, followed by an adjective," and "Names of certain portions of time and s.p.a.ce, and especially words denoting continuance of time or progression, are used _without a governing word_."--_Philos. Gram._, pp. 165 and 172; _Imp. Gram._, 116 and 122; _Rudiments_, 65 and 67. But this is no account at all of the _construction_, or of the _case_ of the noun. As the nominative, or the case which we may use independently, is never a subject of government, the phrase, "_without a governing word_," implies that the case is _objective_; and how can this case be known, except by the discovery of some "governing word," of which it is the _object?_ We find, however, many such rules as the following: "Nouns of time, distance, and degree, are put in the objective case without a preposition."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 100. "Nouns which denote time, quant.i.ty, measure, distance, value, or direction are often put in the objective case without a preposition."--_Weld's Gram._, p.

153; "Abridged Ed.," 118. "Numes signifying duration, extension, quant.i.ty, quality, and valuation, are in the objective case without a governing word."--_Frazee's Gram._, p. 154. _Bullions_, too, has a similar rule. To estimate these rules aright, one should observe how often the nouns in question are found _with_ a governing word. Weld, of late, contradicts himself by _admitting the ellipsis_; and then, inconsistently with his admission, most absurdly _denies the frequent use_ of the preposition with nouns of _time, quant.i.ty_, &c. "Before words of this description, the _ellipsis of a preposition is obvious_. But it is _seldom proper to use_ the preposition before such words."--_Weld's "Abridged Edition,"_ p. 118.

[366] Professor Fowler absurdly says, "_Nigh, near, next, like_, when followed by the objective case, _may be regarded either_ as Prepositions or as Adjectives, _to_ being understood."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, --458, Note 7. Now, "_to_ being understood," it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be complex, and to be partly suppressed. This can be nothing better than an idle whim; and, since the cla.s.sification of words as parts of speech, is always positive and exclusive, to refer any particular word indecisively to "_either_" of two cla.s.ses, is certainly no better _teaching_, than to say, "I do not know of which sort it is; call it what you please!" With decision prompt enough, but with too little regard to a.n.a.logy or consistency, Latham and Child say, "The adjective _like governs a case_, and it is the only adjective that does so."--_Elementary Gram._, p. 155. In teaching thus, they seem to ignore these facts: that _near_, _nigh_, or _opposite_, might just as well be said to be an adjective governing a case; and that the use of _to_ or _unto_ after _like_ has been common enough to prove the ellipsis. The Bible has many examples; as, "Who is _like to_ thee in Israel?"--_1 Samuel_, xxvi, 15. "Hew thee two tables of stone _like unto_ the first."--_Exodus_, x.x.xiv, 1; and _Deut._, x, 1.

But their great inconsistency here is, that they call the case after like "_a dative_"--a case unknown to their etymology! See _Gram. of E. Gram._, p. 259. In grammar, a _solitary_ exception or instance can scarcely be a _true one_.

[367] The following examples may ill.u.s.trate these points: "These verbs, and all others _like to_ them, were _like_ TIMAO."--_Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang._, Vol. ii, p. 128. "The old German, and even the modern German, are much _liker to_ the Visigothic than they are to the dialect of the Edda."--_Ib._, i, 330. "Proximus finem, _nighest_ the end."--_Ib._, ii, 150. "Let us now come _nearer to_ our own language."--_Dr. Blair's Rhet._, p. 85. "This looks _very like_ a paradox."--BEATTIE: _Murray's Gram._, Vol.

i, p. 113. "He was _near_ [to] falling."--_Ib._, p. 116. Murray, who puts _near_ into his list of prepositions, gives this example to show how "_prepositions become adverbs!_" "There was none ever before _like unto_ it."--_Stone, on Masonry_, p. 5.

"And earthly power doth then show _likest_ G.o.d's, When mercy seasons justice."--_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 45.

[368] Wright's notion of this construction is positively absurd and self-contradictory. In the sentence, "My cane is worth a s.h.i.+lling," he takes the word _worth_ to be a noun "in _apposition_ to the word _s.h.i.+lling_." And to prove it so, he puts the sentence successively into these four forms: "My cane is _worth_ or _value_ for a s.h.i.+lling;"--"The _worth_ or _value_ of my cane is a s.h.i.+lling;"--"My cane is a _s.h.i.+lling's worth_;"--"My cane is _the worth of_ a s.h.i.+lling."--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 150. In all these trans.m.u.tations, _worth_ is unquestionably a noun; but, in none of them, is it in apposition with the word _s.h.i.+lling_; and he is quite mistaken in supposing that they "indispensably prove the word in question to be a _noun_." There are other authors, who, with equal confidence, and equal absurdity, call _worth_ a _verb_. For example: "A noun, which signifies the price, is put in the objective case, without a preposition; as, 'my book is _worth_ twenty s.h.i.+llings.' _Is worth_ is a _neuter verb_, and answers to the _latin_ [sic--KTH] verb _valet_."--_Barrett's Gram._, p. 138. I do not deny that the phrase "_is worth_" is a just version of the verb _valet_; but this equivalence in import, is no proof at all that _worth_ is a verb. _Prodest_ is a Latin verb, which signifies "_is profitable to_;" but who will thence infer, that _profitable to_ is a verb?

[369] In J. R. Chandler's English Grammar, as published in 1821, the word _worth_ appears in the list of prepositions: but the revised list, in his edition of 1847, does not contain it. In both books, however, it is expressly pa.r.s.ed as a preposition; and, in expounding the sentence, "The book is worth a dollar," the author makes this remark: "_Worth_ has been called an adjective by some, and a noun by others: _worth_, however, in this sentence expresses a relation by value, and is so far a preposition; and no ellipsis, which may be formed, would change the nature of the word, without giving the sentence a different meaning."--_Chandler's Gram._, Old Ed., p. 155; New Ed., p. 181.

[370] Cowper here purposely makes Mrs. Gilpin use bad English; but this is no reason why a school-boy may not be taught to correct it. Dr. Priestley supposed that the word _we_, in the example, "_To poor we_, thine enmity,"

&c., was also used by Shakespeare, "in a droll humorous way."--_Gram._, p.

103. He surely did not know the connexion of the text. It is in "Volumnia's _pathetic_ speech" to her victorious son. See _Coriola.n.u.s_, Act V, Sc. 3.

[371] Dr. Enfield misunderstood this pa.s.sage; and, in copying it into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing _we_ to _us_: as if the meaning were, "Making us fools of nature."

But it is plain, that all "fool's of nature!" must be fools of nature's own making, and not persons temporarily frighted out of their wits by a ghost; nor does the meaning of the last two lines comport with any objective construction of this p.r.o.noun. See _Enfield's Speaker_, p. 864.

[372] In Clark's Practical Grammar, of 1848, is found this NOTE: "The Noun should correspond in number with the Adjectives. EXAMPLES--A two feet ruler. A ten feet pole."--P. 165. These examples are wrong: the doctrine is misapplied in both. With this author, _a_, as well as _two_ or _ten_, is an _adjective_ of number; and, since these differ in number, what sort of concord or construction do the four words in each of these phrases make?

When a numeral and a noun are united to form a _compound adjective_, we commonly, if not always, use the latter in its primitive or singular form: as, "A _twopenny_ toy,"--"a _twofold_ error,"--"_three-coat_ plastering,"

say, "a _twofoot_ rule,"--"a _tenfoot_ pole;" which phrases are right; while Clark's are not only unusual, but una.n.a.logical, ungrammatical.

[373] Certain adjectives that differ in number, are sometimes connected disjunctively by _or_ or _than_, while the noun literally agrees with that which immediately precedes it, and with the other merely by implication or supplement, under the figure which is called _zeugma_: as, "Two or more nouns joined together by _one_ or _more_ copulative conjunctions."-- _Lowth's Gram._, p. 75; _L. Murray's_, 2d Ed., p. 106. "He speaks not to _one_ or a _few_ judges, but to a large a.s.sembly."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.

280. "_More_ than _one_ object at a time."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 301.

See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[374] Double comparatives and double superlatives, such as, "The _more serener_ spirit,"--"The _most straitest_ sect,"--are noticed by Latham and Child, in their syntax, as expressions which "we occasionally find, even in good writers," and are truly stated to be "_pleonastic_;" but, forbearing to censure them as errors, these critics seem rather to justify them as pleonasms allowable. Their indecisive remarks are at fault, not only because they are indecisive, but because they are both liable and likely to mislead the learner.--See their _Elementary Grammar_, p. 155.

[375] The learned William B. Fowle strangely imagines all p.r.o.nouns to be _adjectives_, belonging to nouns expressed or understood after them; as, "We kings require _them_ (subjects) to obey _us_ (kings)."--_The True English Gram._, p. 21. "_They_ grammarians, [i. e.] _those_ grammarians.

_They_ is an other spelling of _the_, and of course means _this, that, these, those_, as the case may be."--_Ibid._ According to him, then, "_them grammarians_," for "_those grammarians_," is perfectly good English; and so is "_they grammarians_," though the vulgar do not take care to _vary this adjective_, "as _the case_ may be." His notion of subjoining a noun to every p.r.o.noun, is a fit counterpart to that of some other grammarians, who imagine an ellipsis of a p.r.o.noun after almost every noun. Thus: "The personal _Relatives_, for the most part, _are suppressed_ when the Noun is expressed: as, Man (he) is the Lord of this lower world. Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation. The Palace (it) stands on a Hill. Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures."--_British Gram._, p. 234; _Buchanan's_, 131. It would have been worth a great deal to some men, to have known _what an Ellipsis is_; and the man who shall yet make such knowledge common, ought to be forever honoured in the schools.

[376] "An illegitimate and ungrammatical use of these words, _either_ and _neither_, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, '_Twenty_ ruffians broke into the house, but _neither_ of them could be recognized.' 'Here are _fifty_ pens, you will find that _either_ of them will do.'"--MATT. HARRISON, _on the English Language_, p. 199. "_Either_ and _neither_, applied to any number more than _one_ of _two_ objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction."--_Ib._, p. 200. Say, "_Either_ OR _neither_," &c.--G.

B.

[377] Dr. Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word _whole_ is an "_attribute of unity_," and therefore improperly added to a plural noun. But, in fact, this adjective is not _necessarily_ singular, nor is _all_ necessarily plural. Yet there is a difference between the words: _whole_ is equivalent to _all_ only when the noun is singular; for then only do _entireness_ and _totality_ coincide. A man may say, "_the whole thing_," when he means, "_all the thing_;" but he must not call _all things, whole things_. In the following example, _all_ is put for _whole_, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: "Which doth encompa.s.s and embrace the _all_ of things."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 59.

[378] This is not a mere repet.i.tion of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted.

Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way.--G. BROWN.

[379] Some authors erroneously say, "A _personal_ p.r.o.noun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, _I_ will do it.'"--_Goodenow's Gram._ "When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the _third_ person, but the p.r.o.noun you is of the _second_; yet _you_ stands for _children_,"--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 54. Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circ.u.mstance. It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's p.r.o.nouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters. The p.r.o.noun _I_ does not here stand for the noun _John_ which is of the third person; it is John's own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning is, _"I myself, John, of the first person, will do it."_ Nor does _you_ stand for _children_ as spoken _of_ by Ingersoll; but for _children_ of the _second person_, uttered or implied in the address of his messenger: as, "_Children_, you must come in."

[380] The propriety of this construction is questionable. See Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.

[381] Among the authors who have committed this great fault, are, Alden, W.

Allen, D. C. Allen, C. Adams, the author of the British Grammar, Buchanan, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Dilworth, Felton, Fisher, Fowler, Frazee, Goldsbury, Hallock, Hull, M'Culloch, Morley, Pinneo, J. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, R.

C. Smith, Spencer, Weld, Wells, Webster, and White. "_You is plural_, whether it refer to only one individual, or to more."--_Dr. Crombie, on Etym. and Synt._, p. 240. "The word _you_, even when applied to one person, is plural, and should never he connected with a singular verb."--_Alexander's Gram._, p. 53; _Emmons's_, 26. "_You_ is of the Plural Number, even though used as the Name of a single Person."--_W. Ward's Gram._, p. 88. "Altho' the Second Person Singular in both Times be marked with _thou_, to distinguish it from the Plural, yet we, out of Complaisance, though we speak but to one particular Person, use _the Plural you_, and never thou, but when we address ourselves to Almighty G.o.d, or when we speak in an emphatical Manner, or make a distinct and particular Application to a Person."--_British Gram._, p. 126; _Buchanan's_, 37. "But _you_, tho' applied to a single Person, requires a _Plural Verb_, the same as ye; as, _you love_, not _you lovest_ or _loves_; you _were_, not _you was_ or _wast_."--_Buchanan's Gram._, p. 37.

[382] "Mr. Murray's 6th Rule is unnecessary."--_Lennie's English Gram._, p.

81; _Bullions's_, p. 90. The two rules of which I speak, const.i.tute Murray's Rule VI; Alger's and Bacon's Rule VI; Merchant's Rule IX; Ingersoll's Rule XII; Kirkham's Rules XV and XVI; Jaudon's XXI and XXII; Crombie's X and XI; Nixon's Obs. 86th and 87th: and are found in Lowth's Gram., p. 100; Churchill's, 136; Adam's, 203; W. Allen's, 156; Blair's, 75; and many other books.

[383] This rule, in all its parts, is to be applied chiefly, if not solely, to such relative clauses as are taken in the _restrictive_ sense; for, in the _resumptive_ sense of the relative, _who_ or _which_ may be more proper than _that_: as, "Abraham solemnly adjures his _most faithful_ servant, _whom_ he despatches to Charran on this matrimonial mission for his son, to discharge his mission with all fidelity."--_Milman's Jews_, i, 21. See Etymology, Chap. 5th, Obs. 23d, 24th, &c., on the Cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns.

[384] Murray imagined this sentence to be bad English. He very strangely mistook the p.r.o.noun _he_ for the object of the preposition _with_; and accordingly condemned the text, under the rule, "Prepositions govern the objective case." So of the following: "It is not I he is engaged with."--_Murray's Exercises_, R. 17. Better: "It is not I _that_ he is engaged with." Here is no violation of the foregoing rule, or of any other; and both sentences, with even Murray's form of the latter, are quite as good as his proposed subst.i.tutes: "It was not _with him_, that they were so angry."--_Murray's Key_, p. 51. "It is not _with me_ he is engaged."--_Ib._ In these fancied corrections, the phrases _with him_ and _with me_ have a very awkward and questionable position: it seems doubtful, whether they depend on _was_ and _is_, or on _angry_ and _engaged_.

[385] In their speculations on the _personal p.r.o.nouns_, grammarians sometimes contrive, by a sort of abstraction, to reduce all the persons to the _third_; that is, the author or speaker puts _I_, not for himself in particular, but for any one who utters the word, and _thou_, not for his particular hearer or reader, but for any one who is addressed; and, conceiving of these as persons merely spoken of by himself, he puts the verb in the third person, and not in the first or second: as, "_I is_ the speaker, _thou_ [_is_] the hearer, and _he, she_, or _it_, is the person or thing spoken of. All denote _qualities of existence_, but such qualities as make different impressions on the mind. _I is_ the being of _consciousness, thou_ [_is_ the being] of _perception_, and _he_ of _memory_."--_Booth's Introd._, p. 44. This is such syntax as I should not choose to imitate; nor is it very proper to say, that the three persons in grammar "denote _qualities_ of existence." But, supposing the phraseology to be correct, it is no _real_ exception to the foregoing rule of concord; for _I_ and _thou_ are here made to be p.r.o.nouns of the _third_ person. So in the following example, which I take to be bad English: "I, or the person who speaks, _is_ the first person; you, _is_ the second; he, she, or it, is the third person singular."--_Bartlett's Manual_, Part ii, p. 70. Again, in the following; which is perhaps a little better: "The person '_I_' _is spoken of_ as acted upon."--_Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 29. But there is a manifest absurdity in saying, with this learned "Professor of Languages,"

that the p.r.o.nouns of the different persons _are_ those persons: as, "_I is the first person_, and denotes the speaker. _Thou is the second_, and denotes the person spoken to."--_Ib._, p. 22.

[386] (1.) Concerning the verb _need_, Dr. Webster has the following note: "In the use of this verb there is another irregularity, which is peculiar, the verb being _without a nominative_, expressed or implied. 'Whereof here _needs_ no account.'--_Milt., P. L._, 4. 235. There is no evidence of the fact, and there _needs_ none. This is an established use of _need_."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 178; _Improved Gram._, 127; _Greenleaf's Gram. Simp._, p. 38; _Fowler's E. Gram._, p. 537. "Established use?" To be sure, it is "an established use;" but the learned Doctor's comment is a most unconscionable blunder,--a pedantic violation of a sure principle of Universal Grammar,--a perversion worthy only of the veriest ignoramus. Yet Greenleaf profitably publishes it, with other plagiarisms, for "Grammar Simplified!" Now the verb "_needs_," like the Latin _eget_, signifying _is necessary_, is here not active, but neuter; and has the nominative set _after it_, as any verb must, when the adverb _there_ or _here_ is before it. The verbs _lack_ and _want_ may have the same construction, and can have no other, when the word _there_, and not a nominative, precedes them; as, "Peradventure _there shall lack five_ of the fifty righteous."--_Gen._, xviii, 28. There is therefore neither "_irregularity_," nor any thing "_peculiar_," in thus placing the verb and its nominative.

(2.) Yet have we other grammarians, who, with astonis.h.i.+ng facility, have allowed themselves to be misled, and whose books are now misleading the schools, in regard to this very simple matter. Thus Wells: "The _transitive_ verbs _need_ and _want_, are sometimes employed in a general sense, _without a nominative_, expressed or implied. Examples:--'There _needed_ a new dispensation.'--_Caleb Cus.h.i.+ng_. 'There _needs_ no better picture.'--_Irving_. 'There _wanted_ not patrons to stand up.'--_Sparks_.

'Nor did there _want_ Cornice, or frieze.'--_Milton_."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 141: 113th Ed., p. 154. In my edition of Milton, the text is, "Nor did _they want_ Cornice or frieze."--_P. L._, B. i, l. 715, 716. This reading makes _want_ a "transitive" verb, but the other makes it neuter, with the nominative following it. Again, thus Weld: "_A verb in the imperative mode_, and the _transitive_ verbs _need, want_, and _require_, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, _without a nominative_; as, _let_ there be light; There _required_ haste in the business; There _needs_ no argument for proving, &c. There _wanted_ not men who would, &c. The last expressions have an _active form with a pa.s.sive sense_, and should perhaps rather be considered _elliptical_ than _wanting a nominative_; as, _haste is required, no argument is needed_, &c."--_Weld's English Grammar Ill.u.s.trated_, p. 143. Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical example, "_Let_ there be light,"--a kind of sentence from which the nominative is _usually suppressed_,--is here absurdly represented as being full, yet without a subject for its verb; while other examples, which are full, and in which the nominative _must follow_ the verb, because the adverb "_there_" precedes, are first denied to have nominatives, and then most bunglingly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!

(3.) The idea of a command _wherein no person or thing is commanded_, seems to have originated with Webster, by whom it has been taught, since 1807, as follows: "In some cases, the imperative verb is used without a definite nominative."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 141; _Imp. Gram._, 86; _Rudiments_, 69.

See the same words in _Frazee's Gram._, p. 133. Wells has something similar: "A verb in the imperative is sometimes used _absolutely_, having no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or implied; as, 'And G.o.d said, _Let_ there be light.'"--_School Gram._, p. 141. But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of primeval chaos, it must have meant, "_Do ye let light be there._" What else could it mean? There may frequently be difficulty in determining what or who is addressed by the imperative _let_, but there seems to be more in affirming that it has no subject. Nutting, puzzled with this word, makes the following dubious and unsatisfactory suggestion: "Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to _may_; or it may be termed itself an _imperative mode impersonal_; that is, containing a command or an entreaty addressed to no particular person."--_Nutting's Practical Gram._, p. 47.

(4.) These several errors, about the "Imperative used Absolutely," with "no subject addressed," as in "_Let there be light_," and the Indicative "verbs NEED and WANT, employed without a nominative, either expressed or implied,"

are again carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology "in its Elements and Forms,"--called, rather extravagantly, an "English Grammar." See, in his edition of 1850, --597, Note 3 and Note 7; also --520, Note 2. Wells's authorities for "Imperatives Absolute," are, "Frazee, Allen and Cornwell, Nutting, Lynde, and Chapin;"

and, with reference to "NEED and WANT," he says, "See Webster, Perley, and Ingersoll."--_School Gram._, 1850, --209.

(5.) But, in obvious absurdity most strangely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: "_Need_ and _dare_ are sometimes used in _a general sense without a nominative_: as, 'There _needed_ no prophet to tell us that;' 'There _wanted_ no advocates to secure the voice of the people.' It is better, however, to supply _it_, as a nominative, than admit an _anomala_. Sometimes, when intransitive, they have the _plural form_ with a singular _noun_: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you.'"--_Rev. H. W. Bailey's E. Gram._, 1854, p. 128. The last example--"_He dare_"--is bad English: _dare_ should be _dares_. "He _need_ not _fear_," if admitted to be right, is of the potential mood; in which no verb is inflected in the third person. "_He_," too, is not a "_noun_;" nor can it ever rightly have a "_plural_" verb. "To supply _it_, as a nominative," where the verb is declared to be "_without a nominative_," and to make "_wanted_" an example of "_dare_" are blunders precisely worthy of an author who knows not how to spell _anomaly!_

[387] This interpretation, and others like it, are given not only by _Murray_, but by many other grammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he. See _Bicknell's Gram._, Part i, p. 123; _Ingersoll's_, 153; _Guy's_, 91; _Alger's_, 73; _Merchant's_, 100; _Picket's_, 211; _Fisk's_, 146; _D. Adams's_, 81; _R. C. Smith's_, 182.

[388] The same may be said of Dr. Webster's "_nominative sentences_;" three fourths of which are nothing but _phrases_ that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing "an _essential part_ of it," is a flat absurdity? An _adjunct_ is "something added to another, but _not essentially a part_ of it."--_Webster's Dict._ But, says the Doctor, "Attributes and other words often make an _essential part_ of the nominative; [as,] '_Our_ IDEAS _of eternity_ CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'--LOCKE. 'A _wise_ SON MAKETH a glad father; but a _foolish_ SON IS the heaviness of his mother.' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposition cannot always be true. 'HE _that gathereth in summer_ is a wise son.' Take away the description, '_that gathereth in summer_,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable. These sentences or clauses thus _const.i.tuting_ the subject of an affirmation, may be termed _nominative sentences_."--_Improved Gram._, p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"--_Ib._, p. 94; _Philos. Gram._, 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle temper, and a peaceful life."--_Murray's Exercises_, p. 8. "_The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr_, is part of a sentence, _which_ is the _nominative case_ to the verb '_are_.' _Are_ is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and _agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence_, as its nominative case."--_Introduction to English Parsing_, p. 137. On this principle of _a.n.a.lysis_, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, must be _singular_, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!

[389] "No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."--_Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar_, p. 162. "A _personal_ p.r.o.noun becomes a nominative, though a _relative_ does not."--_Ib._, p. 152. This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: "Wright says that 'Personal p.r.o.nouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative p.r.o.nouns _can not be_. Yet he declines his relatives thus: 'Nominative case, _who_; possessive, _whose_; objective, _whom!"--Oliver B. Peirce's Grammar_, p. 331. This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the former, and accordingly treats _who, which, what, whatever_, &c., as relative p.r.o.nouns of the nominative case--or, as he calls them, "connective subst.i.tutes in the subjective form;" but when _what_ or _whatever_ precedes its noun, or when _as_ is preferred to _who_ or _which_, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously pa.r.s.e the verbs which belong to the relatives, _who, which_, and _that_: as, "Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 55. Here Peirce considers _whatever_ to be a mere adjective, and _man_ the subject of _will adhere_ and _will find_. "Such persons as write grammar, should themselves be grammarians."--_Ib._, p. 330. Here he declares _as_ to be no p.r.o.noun, but "a modifying connective," i.e., conjunction; and supposes _persons_ to be the direct subject of _write_ as well as of _should be_: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its nominative!

[390] Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: "_Your master, I, commands you_ (not _command_)."--_Ib._ But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, _may be changed in person_, by being set in apposition with a p.r.o.noun of the first or second. But even if terms so used do not _a.s.similate_ in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above. It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: "_I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry_."--_Hand-Book_, p.

334.

[391] Professor Fowler says, "_One_ when contrasted with _other_, sometimes represents _plural nouns_; as, 'The reason why the _one_ are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the _other_ for bare powers, seems to be.'--LOCKE.", _Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, p. 242. This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective. For, if _one_ may be _plural_, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number.

"_One_" and "_other_" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun _cla.s.s_ or _species_, understood, which should have been expressed after the former. See Etym., Obs. 19, p. 276.

[392] Dr. Priestley says, "It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circ.u.mstances, the construction will be harsh: [as,] _Minced pies was_ regarded as a profane and superst.i.tious viand by the sectaries.

_Hume's Hist._ A great _cause_ of the low state of industry _were_ the restraints put upon it. _Ib._ By this term was understood, such _persons_ as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world."--_English Gram. with Notes_, p. 189. The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be _bad English_, or at least _harsh in their construction_. And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb.

Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's "_viand_"