The Grammar of English Grammars Part 299

[417] Some modern grammarians will have it, that a participle governed by a preposition is a "_participial noun_;" and yet, when they come to pa.r.s.e an adverb or an objective following, their "_noun_" becomes a "_participle_"

again, and _not_ a "_noun_." To allow words thus to _dodge_ from one cla.s.s to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hurt, Weld, Wells, and S. S. Greene.

[418] Dr. Blair, to whom Murray ought to have acknowledged himself indebted for this sentence, introduced _a noun_, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer: thus, "It is disagreeable _for the mind_ to be _left pausing_ on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p. 118. See Obs. 10th and 11th on Rule 14th.

[419] The perfect contrast between _from_ and _to_, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this _to_ is the common preposition _to_. For example, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth _from standing_ before the Lord of all the earth."--_Zech._, vi, 5. Now if this were rendered "which go forth _to stand_," &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations. Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, "going forth _to stand_;" and the Latin, "which go forth, _that they may stand_;" while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,--"which go forth _from the place where they stood._"

[420] _Cannot_, with a verb of _avoiding_, or with the negative _but_, is equivalent to _must_. Such examples may therefore be varied thus: "I _cannot but mention_:" i.e., "I _must_ mention."--"I _cannot help exhorting_ him to a.s.sume courage."--_Knox_. That is, "I _cannot but exhort_ him."

[421] See the same thing in _Kirkham's Gram._ p. 189; in _Ingersoll's_, p.

200; in _Smith's New Grammar_, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work. Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, "_Participles_ frequently govern nouns _and_ p.r.o.nouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his _majesty's dying_ without issue, &c.; Upon _G.o.d's having ended_ all his works, &c.; I remember _its being reckoned_ a great exploit; At my _coming_ in he said, &c."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 181. None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy. Better: "In case his _Majesty die_ without issue."--"_G.o.d_ having ended all his works."--"I remember _it was_ reckoned a great exploit."--"At my _entrance_, he said," &c.

[422] We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken _substantively_, "it ought not to govern another word;" and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an _adverb_ relating to it. But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their "_participial nouns_" to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects. For example: Because one may say, "_To read superficially_, is useless," Barnard supposes it right to say, "_Reading superficially_ is useless." "But the _participle_," says he, "will also take the adjective; as, '_Superficial reading_ is useless.'"--_a.n.a.lytic Gram._, p. 212. In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected. Again, this author says: "We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a _noun_. What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of _a man's_ accomplis.h.i.+ng a task so stupendous.' The _entire clause_ following _man's_, is taken as a noun. 'Of a man's _success_ in a task so stupendous.' would present no difficulty. A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, _thus often_ stands _for a noun_. 'My going will depend on my father's giving his consent,' or 'on my father's consenting.'

A participle _thus used_ as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN."--_Ib._, p. 131. I dislike this doctrine also. In the first example, _man_ may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: "There has been no instance of a _man accomplis.h.i.+ng_ a task so stupendous." It is also proper to say. "_My going_ will depend on my _father's consenting_," or, "on my _father's consent_."

But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive. If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert _of_: thus, "There has been no instance of a _man's accomplis.h.i.+ng of_ a task so stupendous." "My going will depend on my _father's giving of_ his consent."--"My _brother's acquiring [of_] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels."--_Barnard's Gram._, p. 227. If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, "A superficial reading books is useless?" Again, Barnard approves of the question, "What do you think of my _horse's running to-day_?" and adds, "Between this form of expression and the following, 'What do you think of my _horse running_ to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. _The difference of meaning certainly exists_; but it would seem more judicious to treat _the latter_ as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of _me_ going to Niagara?' We should say _my_ going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, _therefore_, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think _of the propriety_ of my going to Niagara?"--_a.n.a.lytic Gram._, p. 227. The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective p.r.o.noun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle.

[423] The following is an example, but it is not very intelligible, nor would it be at all amended, if the p.r.o.noun were put in the possessive case: "I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of _them being spared_ even one lash of the cart-whip."--REV. DR. THOMPSON: _Garrison, on Colonization_, p. 80. And this is an other, in which the possessive p.r.o.noun would not be better: "But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let them do so; not an abolitionist will turn out to stop _them going_ back."--_Antislavery Reporter_, Vol. IV, p. 223. Yet it might be more accurate to say--"to stop them _from_ going back." In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with _as_, where some would be apt to adopt the possessive: "It gives us an idea of _him_, as being the only person to whom it can be applied."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 151. Is not this better English than to say, "of _his_ being the only person?" The following is from the pen of a good scholar: "This made me remember the discourse we had together, at my house, about _me drawing_ const.i.tutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand."--WILLIAM PENN: _Letter to Algernon Sidney_, Oct. 13th, 1681. Here, if _me_ is objectionable, _my_ without _of_ would be no less so. It might be better grammar to say, "about _my drawing of_ const.i.tutions."

[424] Sometimes the pa.s.sive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is simpler; as, "Those portions of the grammar are worth the trouble of _being committed_ to memory."--_Dr. Barrow's Essays_, p. 109. Better, perhaps:--"worth the trouble of _committing_ to memory:" or,--"worth the trouble _committing them_ to memory." Again: "What is worth being uttered at all, is worth _being spoken_ in a proper manner."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 68. Better, perhaps: "What is worth _uttering_ at all, is worth _uttering_ in a proper manner."--G. Brown.

[425] "RULE.--When the participle expresses something of which the noun following is the DOER, it should have the article and preposition; as, 'It was said in _the hearing of_ the witness.' When it expresses something of which the noun following is _not the doer_, but the OBJECT, both should be omitted; as, 'The court spent some time in _hearing_ the witness.'"--BULLIONS, _Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 108; _a.n.a.lyt. and Pract.

Gram._, 181.

[426] This doctrine is far from being true. See Obs. 12th, in this series, above.--G. B.

[427] "Dr. Webster considers the use of _then_ and _above_ as ADNOUNS, [i.

e., adjectives,] to be 'well authorized and very convenient;' as, the _then_ ministry; the _above_ remarks."--_Felch's Comp. Gram._, p. 108. Dr.

Webster's remark is in the following words: "_Then_ and _above_ are often used as ATTRIBUTES: [i. e., adjectives; as,] the _then_ ministry; the _above_ remarks; nor would I prescribe this use. It is well authorized and very convenient."--_Philos. Gram._, p. 245; _Improved Gram._, p. 176. Of this use of _then_, Dr. Crombie has expressed a very different opinion: "Here _then_," says he, "the adverb equivalent to _at that time_, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with _ministry_. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided."--_On Etym. and Synt._, p. 405.

[428] W. Allen supposes, "An adverb sometimes qualifies a whole sentence: as, _Unfortunately_ for the lovers of antiquity, _no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved_."--_Elements of Eng. Gram._, p. 173. But this example may be resolved thus: "_It happens_ unfortunately for the lovers of antiquity, _that_ no remains of Grecian paintings have been preserved."

[429] This a.s.sertion of Churchill's is very far from the truth. I am confident that the latter construction occurs, even among reputable authors, ten times as often as the former can be found in any English books.--G. BROWN.

[430] Should not the Doctor have said, "_are_ there _more_," since "_more than one_" must needs be plural? See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[431] This degree of truth is impossible, and therefore not justly supposable. We have also a late American grammarian who gives a similar interpretation: "'_Though never so justly deserving of it_.' Comber.

_Never_ is here an emphatic adverb; as if it were said, so justly _as was never_. Though well authorized, it is disapproved by most grammarians of the present day; and the word _ever_ is used instead of _never_."--_Felch's Comp. Gram._, p. 107. The text here cited is not necessarily bad English as it stands; but, if the commenter has not mistaken its meaning, as well as its construction, it ought certainly to be, "Though _everso justly_ deserving of it."--"_So justly as was never_," is a positive degree that is not imaginable; and what is this but an absurdity?

[432] Since this remark was written, I have read an other grammar, (that of the "_Rev. Charles Adams_,") in which the author sets down among "the more frequent _improprieties_ committed, in conversation, '_Ary one_' for _either_, and '_nary one_' for _neither_."--_Adams's System of Gram._, p.

116. Eli Gilbert too betrays the same ignorance. Among his "_Improper p.r.o.nunciations_" he puts down "_Nary_" and "_Ary_" and for "_Corrections_"

of them, gives "_neither_" and "_either_."--_Gilbert's Catechetical Gram._, p. 128. But these latter terms, _either_ and _neither_, are applicable only to _one of two_ things, and cannot be used where _many_ are spoken of; as,

"Stealing her soul with _many_ vows of faith, And _ne'er_ a true one."--_Shakspeare_.

What sense would there be in expounding this to mean, "And _neither_ a true one?" So some men both write and interpret their mother tongue erroneously through ignorance. But these authors _condemn_ the errors which they here falsely suppose to be common. What is yet more strange, no less a critic than Prof. William C. Fowler, has lately exhibited, _without disapprobation_, one of these literary blunders, with sundry localisms, (often descending to slang,) which, he says, are mentioned by "Mr.

Bartlett, in his valuable dictionary [_Dictionary] of Americanisms_." The brief example, which may doubtless be understood to speak for both phrases and both authors, is this: "ARY = either."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, N.

Y., 1850, p. 92.

[433] The conjunction _that_, at the head of a sentence or clause, enables us to a.s.sume the whole preposition as one _thing_; as, "All arguments whatever are directed to prove one or other of these _three things: that_ something is true; _that_ it is morally right or fit; or _that_ it is profitable and good."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 318. Here each _that_ may be pa.r.s.ed as connecting its own clause to the first clause in the sentence; or, to the word _things_ with which the three clauses are in a sort of apposition. If we conceive it to have no such connecting power, we must make this too an exception.

[434] "Note. Then _and_ than are _distinct Particles_, but use hath made the using of _then_ for _than_ after a Comparative Degree at least _pa.s.sable_. See _Butler's_ Eng. Gram. Index."--_Walker's Eng. Particles_, Tenth Ed., 1691, p. 333.

[435] "When the relative _who_ follows the preposition _than_, it must be used as in the _accusative_ case."--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 93. Dr. Priestley seems to have imagined the word _than_ to be _always a preposition_; for he contends against the common doctrine and practice respecting the case after it: "It is, likewise, said, that the nominative case ought to follow the _preposition than_; because the verb _to be_ is understood after it; As, _You are taller than he_, and not _taller than him_; because at full length, it would be, _You are taller than he is_; but since it is allowed, that the oblique case should follow _prepositions_; and since the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle _than_ have, certainly, between them, the force _of a preposition_, expressing the relation of one word to another, _they ought to require the oblique case_ of the p.r.o.noun following."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 105. If _than_ were a preposition, this reasoning would certainly be right; but the Doctor begs the question, by a.s.suming that it _is_ a preposition. William Ward, an other noted grammarian of the same age, supposes that, "ME _sapientior es_, may be translated, _Thou art wiser_ THAN ME." He also, in the same place, avers, that, "The best English Writers have considered _than_ as a Sign of an oblique Case; as, 'She suffers more THAN ME.' Swift, i.e. more than I suffer.

'Thou art a Girl as much brighter THAN HER, As he was a Poet sublimer THAN ME.' Prior.

i.e. Thou art a Girl as much brighter _than she was_, as he was a Poet sublimer _than I am_."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, p. 112. These examples of the objective case after _than_, were justly regarded by Lowth as _bad English_. The construction, however, has a modern advocate in S. W. Clark, who will have the conjunctions _as, but, save, saving_, and _than_, as well as the adjectives _like, unlike, near, next, nigh_, and _opposite_, to be _prepositions_. "After a _Comparative_ the _Preposition than_ is commonly used. Example--Grammar is more interesting _than_ all my other studies."--_Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 178. "_As, like, than_, &c., indicate a relation of _comparison_. Example 'Thou hast been _wiser_ all the while _than me_.' _Southey's Letters._"--_Ib._, p. 96. Here correct usage undoubtedly requires _I_, and not _me_. Such at least is my opinion.

[436] In respect to the _case_, the phrase _than who_ is similar to _than he, than they_, &c., as has been observed by many grammarians; but, since _than_ is a conjunction, and _who_ or _whom_ is a relative, it is doubtful whether it can be strictly proper to set two such connectives together, be the case of the latter which it may. See Note 5th, in the present chapter, below.

[437] After _else_ or _other_, the preposition _besides_ is sometimes used; and, when it recalls an idea previously suggested, it appears to be as good as _than_, or better: as, "_Other_ words, _besides_ the preceding, may begin with capitals."--_Murray's Gram._, Vol. i. p. 285. Or perhaps this preposition may be proper, whenever _else_ or _other_ denotes what is _additional_ to the object of contrast, and not exclusive of it; as, "When we speak of any _other_ quant.i.ty _besides_ bare numbers."--_Tooke's Diversions_, Vol. i, p. 215. "Because he had no _other_ father _besides_ G.o.d."--_Milton, on Christianity_, p. 109. Though we sometimes express an addition by _more than_, the following example appears to me to be _bad English_, and its interpretation still worse: "'The secret was communicated to _more men than him_.' That is, (when the ellipsis is duly supplied,) 'The secret was communicated to more _persons_ than _to_ him.'"--Murray's Key, 12mo, p. 61; his _Octavo Gram._, p. 215; _Ingersoll's Gram._, 252. Say rather,--"to _other_ men _besides_ him." Nor, again, does the following construction appear to be right: "Now _shew_ me _another_ Popish rhymester _but he_."--DENNIS: _Notes to the Dunciad_, B. ii, l. 268. Say rather, "Now _show_ me _an other_ popish rhymester _besides him_." Or thus: "Now show me _any_ popish rhymester _except_ him." This too is questionable: "Now pain must here be intended to signify something _else besides_ warning."--_Wayland's Moral Science_, p. 121. If "warning" was here intended to be included with "something else," the expression is right; if not, _besides_ should be _than_. Again: "There is seldom any _other_ cardinal in Poland _but him_."--_Life of Charles XII_. Here "_but him_"

should be either "_besides him_," or "_than he_;" for _but_ never rightly governs the objective case, nor is it proper after _other_. "Many _more_ examples, _besides_ the foregoing, might have been adduced."--_Nesbit's English Parsing_, p. xv. Here, in fact, no comparison is expressed; and therefore it is questionable, whether the word "_more_" is allowably used.

Like _else_ and _other_, when construed with _besides_, it signifies _additional_; and, as this idea is implied in _besides_, any one of these adjectives going before is really pleonastic. In the sense above noticed, the word _beside_ is sometimes written in stead of besides, though not very often; as, "There are _other_ things which pa.s.s in the mind of man, _beside_ ideas."--_Sheridan's Elocution_, p. 136.

[438] A few of the examples under this head might be corrected equally well by some preceding note of a more specific character; for a general note against the improper omission of prepositions, of course includes those principles of grammar by which any particular prepositions are to be inserted. So the examples of error which were given in the tenth chapter of Etymology, might nearly all of them have been placed under the first note in this tenth chapter of Syntax. But it was thought best to ill.u.s.trate every part of this volume, by some examples of false grammar, out of the infinite number and variety with which our literature abounds.

[439] "The Rev. _Joab Goldsmith Cooper_, A. M.," was the author of two English grammars, as well as of what he called "A New and Improved Latin Grammar," with "An Edition of the Works of Virgil, &c.," all published in Philadelphia. His first grammar, dated 1828, is ent.i.tled, "_An Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, and Exercises_." But it is no more an abridgement of Murray's work, than of mine; he having chosen to steal from the text of my Inst.i.tutes, or supply matter of his own, about as often as to copy Murray. His second is the Latin Grammar. His third, which is ent.i.tled, "_A Plain and Practical English Grammar_," and dated 1831, is a book very different from the first, but equally inaccurate and worthless.

In this book, the syntax of interjections stands thus: "RULE 21. The interjections _O, oh_ and _ah_ are followed by _the objective case_ of a noun or p.r.o.noun, as: 'O me! ah me! oh me!' In the second person, they are _a mark_ or _sign_ of an address, made to a person or thing, as: O thou persecutor! Oh, ye hypocrites! O virtue, how amiable thou art!"--Page 157.

The inaccuracy of all this can scarcely be exceeded.

[440] "_Oh_ is used to express the emotion of _pain, sorrow_, or _surprise_. _O_ is used to express _wis.h.i.+ng, exclamation_, or a direct _address_ to a person."--_Lennie's Gram._, 12th Ed., p. 110. Of this distinction our grammarians in general seem to have no conception; and, in fact, it is so often disregarded by other authors, that the propriety of it may be disputed. Since _O_ and _oh_ are p.r.o.nounced alike, or very nearly so, if there is no difference in their application, they are only different modes of writing the same word, and one or the other of them is useless. If there is a real difference, as I suppose there is, it ought to be better observed; and _O me!_ and _oh ye!_ which I believe are found only in grammars, should be regarded as bad English. Both _O_ and _oh_, as well as _ah_, were used in Latin by Terence, who was reckoned an elegant writer; and his manner of applying them favours this distinction: and so do our own dictionaries, though Johnson and Walker do not draw it clearly, for _oh_ is as much an "_exclamation_" as _O_. In the works of Virgil, Ovid, and Horace, we find _O_ or _o_ used frequently, but nowhere _oh_. Yet this is no evidence of their sameness, or of the uselessness of the latter; but rather of their difference, and of the impropriety of confounding them. _O, oh, ho_, and _ah_, are French words as well as English. Boyer, in his Quarto Dictionary, confounds them all; translating "O!" only by "_Oh!_"

"OH! _ou_ HO!" by "_Ho! Oh!_" and "AH!" by "_Oh! alas! well-a-day! ough! A!

ah! hah! ho!_" He would have done better to have made each one explain itself; and especially, not to have set down "_ough!_" and "_A!_" as English words which correspond to the French _ah!_

[441] This silence is sufficiently accounted for by _Murray's_; of whose work, most of the authors who have any such rule, are either piddling modifiers or servile copyists. And Murray's silence on these matters, is in part attributable to the fact, that when he wrote his remark, his system of grammar denied that nouns have any first person, or any objective case. Of course he supposed that all nouns that were uttered after interjections, whether they were of the second person or of the third, were in the nominative case; for he gave to nouns _two_ cases only, the nominative and the possessive. And when he afterwards admitted the objective case of nouns, he did not alter his remark, but left all his pupils ignorant of the case of any noun that is used in exclamation or invocation. In his doctrine of two cases, he followed Dr. Ash: from whom also he copied the rule which I am criticising: "The _Interjections, O, Oh_, and _Ah_, require the _accusative_ case of a p.r.o.noun in the _first_ Person: as, O _me_, Oh _me_, Ah _me_: But the _Nominative_ in the _second_: as, O _thou_, O _ye_."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 60. Or perhaps he had Bicknell's book, which was later: "The _interjections O, oh_, and _ah_, require the accusative case of a p.r.o.noun in the _first_ person after them; as, _O, me! Oh, me! Ah, me!_ But the nominative case in the _second_ person; as, _O, thou that rulest!

O, ye rulers of this land!_"--_The Grammatical Wreath_, Part I, p. 105.

[442] See _2 Sam._, xix, 4; also xviii, 33. Peirce has many times _misquoted_ this text, or some part of it; and, what is remarkable, he nowhere agrees either with himself or with the Bible! "O! Absalom! my son!"--_Gram._, p. 283. "O Absalom! my son, my son! would _to_ G.o.d I had died for thee."--_Ib._, p. 304. Pinneo also misquotes and perverts a part of it, thus: "Oh, Absalom! my son"--_Primary Gram._, Revised Ed., p. 57.

[443] Of this example, Professor Bullions says, "This will be allowed to be _a correct English sentence_, complete in itself, and requiring nothing to be supplied. The phrase, '_being an expert dancer_,' is the subject of the verb '_does ent.i.tle_;' but the word '_dancer_' in that phrase is neither the subject of any verb, nor is governed by any word in the sentence."--_Eng. Gram._, p. 52. It is because this word cannot have any regular construction after the participle when the possessive case precedes, that I deny his first proposition, and declare the sentence _not_ "to be correct English." But the Professor at length reasons himself into the notion, that this indeterminate "_predicate_," as he erroneously calls it, "is properly in the _objective case_, and in parsing, may correctly be called the _objective indefinite_;" of which case, he says, "The following are also examples: '_He_ had the honour of being a _director_ for life.'

'By being a _diligent student, he_ soon acquired eminence in his profession.'"--_Ib._, p. 83. But "_director_" and "_student_" are here manifestly in the _nominative_ case: each agreeing with the p.r.o.noun _he_, which denotes the same person. In the latter sentence, there is a very obvious transposition of the first five words.

[444] Faulty as this example is, Dr. Blair says of it: "Nothing can be more elegant, or more finely turned, than this sentence. It is neat, _clear_, and musical. We could hardly _alter one word_, or disarrange one member, without _spoiling_ it. Few sentences are to be found, more finished, or more happy."--_Lecture_ XX, p. 201. See the _six_ corrections suggested in my Key, and judge whether or not they _spoil_ the sentence.--G. B.

[445] This Note, as well as all the others, will by-and-by be amply ill.u.s.trated by citations from authors of sufficient repute to give it some value as a grammatical principle: but one cannot hope such language as is, in reality, incorrigibly bad, will always appear so to the generality of readers. Tastes, habits, principles, judgements, differ; and, where confidence is gained, many utterances are well received, that are neither well considered nor well understood. When a professed critic utters what is incorrect beyond amendment, the fault is the more noteworthy, as his professions are louder, or his standing is more eminent. In a recent preface, deliberately composed for a very comprehensive work on "English Grammar," and designed to allure both young and old to "a thorough and extensive acquaintance with their mother tongue,"--in the studied preface of a learned writer, who has aimed "to furnish not only a text-book for the higher inst.i.tutions, but also a reference-book for _teachers_, which may give breadth and exactness to their views,"--I find a paragraph of which the following is a part: "Unless men, at least occasionally, bestow their attention upon the science and the laws of the language, they are in some danger, amid the excitements of professional life, of losing the delicacy of their taste and giving sanction to vulgarisms, or to what is worse. On this point, listen to the recent declarations of two leading men in the Senate of the United States, both of whom understand the use of the English language in its power: 'In truth, I must say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates.' And the other, in courteous response remarked, 'There _is_ such a _thing_ as _an_ English and _a_ parliamentary _vocabulary_, and I have never heard _a worse_, when circ.u.mstances called it out, on this side [_of_] Billingsgate!'"--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo. 1850, Pref., p. iv.

Now of these "two leading men," the former was Daniel Webster, who, in a senatorial speech, in the spring of 1850, made such a remark concerning the style of oratory used in Congress. But who replied, or what idea the "courteous response," as here given, can be said to convey, I do not know.

The language seems to me both unintelligible and solecistical; and, therefore, but a fair sample of the _Incorrigible_. Some intelligent persons, whom I have asked to interpret it, think, as Webster had accused our Congress of corrupting the English language, the respondent meant to accuse the British Parliament of doing the same thing in a greater degree,--of descending yet lower into the vileness of slang. But this is hardly a probable conjecture. Webster might be right in acknowledging a very depraving abuse of the tongue in the two Houses of Congress; but could it be "courteous," or proper, for the answerer to jump the Atlantic, and pounce upon the English Lords and Commons, as a set of worse corrupters?

The gentleman begins with saying, "There _is_ such _a thing_"--as if he meant to describe some _one_ thing; and proceeds with saying, "as _an_ English _and a_ parliamentary vocabulary," in which phrase, by repeating the article, he speaks of _two "things"--two vocabularies_; then goes on, "and I have never heard _a worse_!" A worse _what_? Does he mean "_a worse vocabulary_?" If so, what sense has "_vocabulary_?" And, again, "a worse"

_than_ what? Where and what is this "_thing_" which is so bad that the leading Senator has "never heard a worse?" Is it some "_vocabulary_" both "English and parliamentary?" If so, whose? If not, what else is it? Lest the wisdom of this oraculous "declaration" be lost to the public through the defects of its syntax,--and lest more than one rhetorical critic seem hereby "in some danger" of "giving sanction to" _nonsense_,--it may be well for Professor Fowler, in his next edition, to present some elucidation of this short but remarkable pa.s.sage, which he values so highly!

An other example, in several respects still more remarkable,--a shorter one, into which an equally successful professor of grammar has condensed a much greater number and variety of faults,--is seen in the following citation: "The verb is so called, because it means _word_; and as there can be no sentence without it, it is called, emphatically, _the word_."--_Pinneo's a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 14. This sentence, in which, perhaps, most readers will discover no error, has in fact faults of so many different kinds, that a critic must pause to determine under which of more than half a dozen different heads of false syntax it might most fitly be presented for correction or criticism. (1.) It might be set down under my Note 5th to Rule 10th; for, in one or two instances out of the three, if not in all, the p.r.o.noun "_it_" gives not the same idea as its antecedent.

The faults coming under this head might be obviated by three changes, made thus: "The verb is so called, because _verb_ means _word_; and, as there can be no sentence without _a verb, this part of speech_ is called, emphatically, _the word_." Cobbett wisely says, "Never put an _it_ upon paper without thinking well of what you are about."--_E. Gram._, -- 196. But (2.) the erroneous text, and this partial correction of it too, might be put under my Critical Note 5th, among _Falsities_; for, in either form, each member affirms what is manifestly untrue. The term "_word_" has many meanings; but no usage ever makes it, "_emphatically_" or otherwise, a name for one of the cla.s.ses called "parts of speech;" nor is there nowadays any current usage in which "_verb_ means _word_." (3.) This text might be put under Critical Note 6th, among _Absurdities_; for whoever will read it, as in fairness he should, taking the p.r.o.noun "_it_" in the exact sense of its antecedent "_the verb_," will see that the import of each part is absurd--the whole, a two-fold absurdity. (4.) It might be put under Critical Note 7th, among _Self-Contradictions_; for, to teach at once that "_the verb_ is _so_ called," and "is called, emphatically,"

_otherwise_,--namely, "_the word_,"--is, to contradict one's self. (5.) It might be set down under Critical Note 9th, among examples of _Words Needless_; for the author's question is, "Why is the verb so called?" and this may be much better answered in fewer words, thus: "THE VERB is so called, because in French it is called _le verbe_ and in Latin, _verb.u.m_, which means _word_." (6.) It might be put under Critical Note 10th, as an example of _Improper Omissions_; for it may be greatly bettered by the addition of some words, thus: "The verb is so called, because [in French]

it [is called _le verbe_, and in Latin, _verb.u.m_, which] means _word_: as there can be no sentence without _a verb, this_ [most important part of speech] is called, emphatically, [_the verb_,--q.d.,] _the word_." (7.) It might be put under Critical Note 11th, among _Literary Blunders_; for there is at least one blunder in each of its members. (8.) It might be set down under Critical Note 13th, as an example of _Awkwardness_; for it is but clumsy work, to teach _grammar_ after this sort. (9.) It might be given under Critical Note 16th, as a sample of the _Incorrigible_; for it is scarcely possible to eliminate all its defects and retain its essentials.

These instances may suffice to show, that even gross errors of grammar may lurk where they are least to be expected, in the didactic phraseology of professed masters of style or oratory, and may abound where common readers or the generality of hearers will discover nothing amiss.

[446] As a mere a.s.sertion, this example is here sufficiently corrected; but, as a _definition_, (for which the author probably intended it,) it is deficient; and consequently, in that sense, is still inaccurate. I would also observe that most of the subsequent examples under the present head, contain other errors than that for which they are here introduced; and, of some of them, the faults are, in my opinion, very many: for example, the several definitions of an _adverb_, cited below. Lindley Murray's definition of this part of speech is not inserted among these, because I had elsewhere criticised that. So too of his faulty definition of a _conjunction_. See the _Introduction_, Chap. X. paragraphs 26 and 28. See also _Corrections in the Key_, under Note 10th to Rule 1st.