OBSERVATIONS ON RULE III.
OBS. 1—Apposition is that peculiar relation which one noun or pronoun bears to an other, when two or more are placed together in the same case, and used to designate the same person or thing: as, "Cicero the orator;"—"The prophet Joel;"—"He of Gath, Goliah;"—"Which ye yourselves do know;"—"To make him king;"—"To give his life a ransom for many;"—"I made the ground my bed;"—"I, thy schoolmaster;"—"We the People of the United States." This placing-together of nouns and pronouns in the same case, was reckoned by the old grammarians a figure of syntax; and from them it received, in their elaborate detail of the grammatical and rhetorical figures, its present name of apposition. They reckoned it a species of ellipsis, and supplied between the words, the participle being, the infinitive to be, or some other part of their "substantive verb:" as, "Cicero being the orator;"—"To make him to be king;"—"I who am thy schoolmaster." But the later Latin grammarians have usually placed it among their regular concords; some calling it the first concord, while others make it the last, in the series; and some, with no great regard to consistency, treating it both as a figure and as a regular concord, at the same time.
OBS. 2.—Some English grammarians teach, "that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb to be, may be said to be in apposition to each other."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 181; R. C. Smith's, 155; Fisk's, 126; Ingersoll's, 146; Merchant's, 91. But this is entirely repugnant to the doctrine, that apposition is a figure; nor is it at all consistent with the original meaning of the word apposition; because it assumes that the literal reading, when the supposed ellipsis is supplied, is apposition still. The old distinction, however, between apposition and same cases, is generally preserved in our grammars, and is worthy ever to be so. The rule for same cases applies to all nouns or pronouns that are put after verbs or participles not transitive, and that are made to agree in case with other nouns or pronouns going before, and meaning the same thing. But some teachers who observe this distinction with reference to the neuter verb be, and to certain passive verbs of naming, appointing, and the like, absurdly break it down in relation to other verbs, neuter or active-intransitive. Thus Nixon: "Nouns in apposition are in the same case; as, 'Hortensius died a martyr;' 'Sydney lived the shepherd's friend.'"—English Parser, p. 55. It is remarkable that all this author's examples of "nominatives in apposition," (and he gives eighteen in the exercise,) are precisely of this sort, in which there is really no apposition at all.
OBS. 3.—In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the explanatory term; because the case of the principal term depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule. In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which might be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation. Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, William Pitt—Marcus Tullius Cicero. It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, Lord Bacon—Sir Isaac Newton. William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of "George Washington," absurdly take the former word as an adjective belonging to the latter. See Russell's Gram., p. 100; and Ware's, 17. R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names. See his New Gram., p. 97. And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, "John Wickliffe's influence," "Robert Bruce's exertions," and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives in apposition with the former. See Nixon's English Parser, p. 59. Wm. B. Fowle, in his "True English Grammar," takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives. According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language. A later writer than any of these says, "The proper noun is philosophically an adjective. Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, may be parsed as adjectives, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, President Madison,—Doctor Johnson,—Mr. Webster,—Esq. Carleton,—Miss Gould,—Professor Ware,—lake Erie,—the Pacific ocean,—Franklin House,—Union street."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 134. I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a man's name in parsing it. A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately: for example, that wonderful doctor, Paracelsus, who called himself, "Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim."—Univ. Biog. Dict.
OBS. 4.—A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: "Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 156. The same has also been applied to our language: "Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of pronouns seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes "signify" or "denote" the same thing. Thus, "the city of London," means only the city London; "the land of Egypt," is only Egypt; and "the person of Richard" is Richard himself. Dr. Webster defines apposition to be, "The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them."—Octavo Dict. This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, "Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law."—Ezra, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."—Acts, ii, 36. "Who made me a judge or a divider over you."—Luke, xii, 14. Thirdly, the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by and, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, "This great philosopher and statesman was bred a printer." Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by as, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."—2 Thess., iii, 15. "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God."—Ib., ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by than; as, "He left them no more than dead men."—Law and Grace, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by or; as, "The back of the hedgehog is covered with prickles, or spines."—Webster's Dict.
OBS. 5.—To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly no exceptions. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,
"From bright'ning fields of ether fair disclos'd, Child of the sun, refulgent Summer comes."—Thomson.
OBS. 6.—The pronouns of the first and second persons are often placed before nouns merely to distinguish their person; as, "I John saw these things."—Bible. "But what is this to you receivers?"—Clarkson's Essay on Slavery, p. 108. "His praise, ye brooks, attune."—Thomson. In this case of apposition, the words are in general closely united, and either of them may be taken as the explanatory term. The learner will find it easier to parse the noun by rule third; or both nouns, if there be two: as, "I thy father-in-law Jethro am come unto thee."—Exod., xviii, 6. There are many other examples, in which it is of no moment, which of the terms we take for the principal; and to all such the rule may be applied literally: as, "Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee."—2 Kings, viii, 9.
OBS. 7.—When two or more nouns of the possessive case are put in apposition, the possessive termination added to one, denotes the case of both or all; as, "For Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife"—Matt., xiv, 3; Mark, vi, 17. Here wife is in apposition with Herodias', and brother with Philip's; consequently all these words are reckoned to be in the possessive case. The Greek text, which is better, stands essentially thus: "For the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother." "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect."—Isaiah, xlv, 4. Here, as Jacob and Israel are only different names for the same person or nation, the four nouns in Italics are, according to the rule, all made possessives by the one sign used; but the construction is not to be commended: it would be better to say, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, and Israel mine elect." "With Hyrcanus the high priest's consent."—Wood's Dict., w. Herod. "I called at Smith's, the bookseller; or, at Smith the bookseller's."— Bullions's E. Gram., p. 105. Two words, each having the possessive sign, can never be in apposition one with the other; because that sign has immediate reference to the governing noun expressed or understood after it; and if it be repeated, separate governing nouns will be implied, and the apposition will be destroyed.[344]
OBS. 8.—If the foregoing remark is just, the apposition of two nouns in the possessive case, requires the possessive sign to be added to that noun which immediately precedes the governing word, whether expressed or understood, and positively excludes it from the other. The sign of the case is added, sometimes to the former, and sometimes to the latter noun, but never to both: or, if added to both, the two words are no longer in apposition. Example: "And for that reason they ascribe to him a great part of his father Nimrod's, or Belus's actions."—Rollin's An. Hist., Vol. ii, p. 6. Here father and Nimrod's are in strict apposition; but if actions governs Belus's, the same word is implied to govern Nimrod's, and the two names are not in apposition, though they are in the same case and mean the same person.
OBS. 9.—Dr. Priestley says, "Some would say, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's, the bookseller;' others, 'at Mr. Smith the bookseller's;' and perhaps others, at 'Mr. Smith's the bookseller's.' The last of these forms is most agreeable to the Latin idiom, but the first seems to be more natural in ours; and if the addition consist [consists, says Murray,] of two or more words, the case seems to be very clear; as, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's the bookseller and stationer;' i. e. at Mr. Smith's, who is a bookseller and stationer."—Priestley's Gram., p. 70. Here the examples, if rightly pointed, would all be right; but the ellipsis supposed, not only destroys the apposition, but converts the explanatory noun into a nominative. And in the phrase, "at Mr. Smiths, the bookseller's," there is no apposition, except that of Mr. with Smith's; for the governing noun house or store is understood as clearly after the one possessive sign as after the other. Churchill imagines that in Murray's example, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor," the last two nouns are in the nominative after "who was" understood; and also erroneously suggests, that their joint apposition with Stormont's might be secured, by saying, less elegantly, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor's."— Churchill's New Gram., p. 285. Lindley Murray, who tacitly takes from Priestley all that is quoted above, except the term "Mr.," and the notion of an ellipsis of "who is," assumes each of the three forms as an instance of apposition, but pronounces the first only to be "correct and proper." If, then, the first is elliptical, as Priestley suggests, and the others are ungrammatical, as Murray pretends to prove, we cannot have in reality any such construction as the apposition of two possessives; for the sign of the case cannot possibly be added in more than these three ways. But Murray does not adhere at all to his own decision, as may be seen by his subsequent remarks and examples, on the same page; as, "The emperor Leopold's;"—"Dionysius the tyrant's;"—"For David my servant's sake;"—"Give me here John the Baptist's head;"—"Paul the apostle's advice." See Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 176; Smith's New Gram., p. 150; and others.
OBS. 10.—An explanatory noun without the possessive sign, seems sometimes to be put in apposition with a pronoun of the possessive case; and, if introduced by the conjunction as, it may either precede or follow the pronoun: thus, "I rejoice in your success as an instructer."— Sanborn's Gram., p. 244. "As an author, his 'Adventurer' is his capital work."—Murray's Sequel, p. 329.
"Thus shall mankind his guardian care engage,
The promised father of a future age."—Pope.
But possibly such examples may be otherwise explained on the principle of ellipsis; as, [He being] "the promised father," &c. "As [he was] an author," &c. "As [you are] an instructer."
OBS. 11.—When a noun or pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis, or for the adding of an epithet, the word which is repeated may properly be said to be in apposition with that which is first introduced; or, if not, the repetition itself implies sameness of case: as, "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."—Jer., ii, 13.
"I find the total of their hopes and fears Dreams, empty dreams."—Cowper's Task, p. 71.
OBS. 12.—A noun is sometimes put, as it were, in apposition to a sentence; being used (perhaps elliptically) to sum up the whole idea in one emphatic word, or short phrase. But, in such instances, the noun can seldom be said to have any positive relation that may determine its case; and, if alone, it will of course be in the nominative, by reason of its independence. Examples: "He permitted me to consult his library—a kindness which I shall not forget."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 148. "I have offended reputation—a most unnoble swerving."—Shakspeare. "I want a hero,—an uncommon want."—Byron. "Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself; a discovery which the poet probably never made before."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 280.
"In Christian hearts O for a pagan zeal!
A needful, but opprobrious prayer!"—Young, N. ix, l. 995.
"Great standing miracle, that Heav'n assign'd
Its only thinking thing this turn of mind."—Pope.
OBS. 13.—A distributive term in the singular number, is frequently construed in apposition with a comprehensive plural; as, "They reap vanity, every one with his neighbour."—Bible. "Go ye every man unto his city."—Ibid. So likewise with two or more singular nouns which are taken conjointly; as, "The Son and Spirit have each his proper office."—Butler's Analogy, p. 163. And sometimes a plural word is emphatically put after a series of particulars comprehended under it; as, "Ambition, interest, glory, all concurred."—Letters on Chivalry, p. 11. "Royalists, republicans, churchmen, sectaries, courtiers, patriots, all parties concurred in the illusion."—Hume's History, Vol. viii, p. 73. The foregoing examples are plain, but similar expressions sometimes require care, lest the distributive or collective term be so placed that its construction and meaning may be misapprehended. Examples: "We have turned every one to his own way."—Isaiah, liii, 6. Better: "We have every one turned to his own way." "For in many things we offend all."—James, iii, 2. Better: "For in many things we all offend." The latter readings doubtless convey the true sense of these texts. To the relation of apposition, it may be proper also to refer the construction of a singular noun taken in a distributive sense and repeated after by to denote order; as, "They went out one by one."—Bible. "Our whole company, man by man, ventured in."—Goldsmith. "To examine a book, page by page; to search a place, house by house."—Ward's Gram., p. 106. So too, perhaps, when the parts of a thing explain the whole; as,
"But those that sleep, and think not on their sins,
Pinch them, arms, legs, backs, shoulders, sides, and shins."
—Shak.
OBS. 14.—To express a reciprocal action or relation, the pronominal adjectives each other and one an other are employed: as, "They love each other;"—"They love one an other." The words, separately considered, are singular; but, taken together, they imply plurality; and they can be properly construed only after plurals, or singulars taken conjointly. Each other is usually applied to two persons or things; and one an other, to more than two. The impropriety of applying them otherwise, is noticed elsewhere; (see, in Part II, Obs. 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives;) so that we have here to examine only their relations of case. The terms, though reciprocal and closely united, are seldom or never in the same construction. If such expressions be analyzed, each and one will generally appear to be in the nominative case, and other in the objective; as, "They love each other;" i. e. each loves the other. "They love one an other;" i. e. any or every one loves any or every other. Each and one (—if the words be taken as cases, and not adjectively—) are properly in agreement or apposition with they, and other is governed by the verb. The terms, however, admit of other constructions; as, "Be ye helpers one of an other."—Bible. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other is governed by of. "Ye are one an other's joy."—Ib. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other's is in the possessive case, being governed by joy. "Love will make you one an other's joy." Here one is in the objective case, being in apposition with you, and other's is governed as before. "Men's confidence in one an other;"—"Their dependence one upon an other." Here the word one appears to be in apposition with the possessive going before; for it has already been shown, that words standing in that relation never take the possessive sign. But if its location after the preposition must make it objective, the whole object is the complex term, "one an other." "Grudge not one against an other."—James, v, 9. "Ne vous plaignez point les uns des autres."—French Bible. "Ne suspirate alius adversus alium."—Beza. "Ne ingemiscite adversus alii alios."—Leusden. "[Greek: Mæ stenazete kat hallælon]."—Greek New Testament.
OBS. 15.—The construction of the Latin terms alius alium, alii alios, &c., with that of the French l'un l'autre, l'un de l'autre, &c., appears, at first view, sufficiently to confirm the doctrine of the preceding observation; but, besides the frequent use, in Latin and Greek, of a reciprocal adverb to express the meaning of one an other or each other, there are, from each of these languages, some analogical arguments for taking the English terms together as compounds. The most common term in Greek for one an other, ([Greek: Hallælon], dat. [Greek: hallælois, ais, ois], acc. [Greek: hallælous]: ab [Greek: hallos], alius,) is a single derivative word, the case of which is known by its termination; and each other is sometimes expressed in Latin by a compound: as, "Et osculantes se alterutrum, fleverunt pariter."—Vulgate. That is: "And kissing each other, they wept together." As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: "And they kissed one an other, and wept one with an other"—1 Sam., xx, 41. Alter-utrum is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like each-other; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to parse each other and one an other otherwise than as compounds: as, "He only recommended this, and not the washing of one another's feet."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 143.
"The Temple late two brother sergeants saw,
Who deem'd each other oracles of law."—Pope, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]
OBS. 16.—The common and the proper name of an object are very often associated, and put in apposition; as, "The river Thames,"—"The ship Albion,"—"The poet Cowper"—"Lake Erie,"—"Cape May"—"Mount Atlas." But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by of; as, "The city of New York,"—"The land of Canaan,"—"The island of Cuba,"—"The peninsula of Yucatan." Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, "That the city Sepphoris should be subordinate to the city Tiberias."—Life of Josephus, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition of is at least needless: "The law delighteth herself in the number of twelve; and the number of twelve is much respected in holy writ."—Coke, on Juries. Two or three late grammarians, supposing of always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, "The city of London, the city of New Haven, the month of March, the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns of Exeter and Dover," than to say, "King of Solomon, Titus of the Roman Emperor, Paul of the apostle, or, Cicero of the orator."—See Barrett's Gram., p. 101; Emmons's, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar. Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, "in the city of New Haven."—Gram., p. 19.
OBS. 17.—When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the passive: as, "They named the child John;"—"The child was named John."—"They elected him president;"—"He was elected president." After the active verb, the acquired name must be parsed by Rule 3d; after the passive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the pronominal adjective some, or the noun men understood after it, is the direct object of the verb gave, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"—Ephesians, iv, 11. That is, "He bestowed some [men] as apostles; and some as prophets; and some as evangelists; and some as pastors and teachers." The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take some to be either a dative case, meaning to some persons, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with some, or some men, in what the Latins call the accusative, case. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of as, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.
OBS. 18.—Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: "The Franks, a people of Germany."—W. Allen's Gram. "The Kenite tribe, the descendants of Hobab."—Milman's Hist. of the Jews. "But how can you a soul, still either hunger or thirst?"—Lucian's Dialogues, p. 14. "Who seized the wife of me his host, and fled."—Ib., p. 16.
"Thy gloomy grandeurs (Nature's most august.
Inspiring aspect!) claim a grateful verse."—Young, N. ix, l. 566.