OBSERVATIONS ON RULE V.
OBS. 1.—To this rule there are no exceptions; but to the old one adopted by Murray and others, "Active verbs govern the objective case," there are more than any writer will ever think it worth his while to enumerate. In point of brevity, the latter has the advantage, but in nothing else; for, as a general rule for NOUNS AND PRONOUNS, this old brief assertion is very defective; and, as a rule for "THE SYNTAX OF VERBS," under which head it has been oftener ranked, it is entirely useless and inapplicable. As there are four different constructions to which the nominative case is liable, so there are four in which the objective may be found; and two of these are common to both; namely, apposition, and sameness of case. Every objective is governed by some verb or participle, according to Rule 5th, or by some preposition, according to Rule 7th; except such as are put in apposition with others, according to Rule 3d, or after an infinitive or a participle not transitive, according to Rule 6th: as, "Mistaking one for the other, they took him, a sturdy fellow, called Red Billy, to be me." Here is every construction which the objective case can have; except, perhaps, that in which, as an expression of time, place, measure, or manner, it is taken after the fashion of an adverb, the governing preposition being suppressed, or, as some say, no governing word being needed. Of this exception, the following quotations may serve for examples: "It holds on by a single button round my neck, cloak-fashion"—EDGEWORTH'S Castle Rackrent. p. 17. A man quite at leisure to parse all his words, would have said, "in the fashion of a cloak." Again: "He does not care the rind of a lemon for her all the while."—Ib., p. 108. "We turn our eyes this way or that way."—Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 172; Frazee's Gram., 157. Among his instances of "the objective case restrictive," or of the noun "used in the objective, without a governing word," Dr. Bullions gives this: "Let us go home" But, according to the better opinion of Worcester, home is here an adverb, and not a noun. See Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.
OBS. 2.—The objective case generally follows the governing word: as, "And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him"—Gen., xlii, 8. But when it is emphatic, it often precedes the nominative; as, "Me he restored to mine office, and him he hanged."—Gen., xli, 13. "John have I beheaded."—Luke, ix, 9. "But me ye have not always."—Matt., xxvi, 11. "Him walking on a sunny hill he found."—Milton. In poetry, the objective is sometimes placed between the nominative and the verb; as,
"His daring foe securely him defied."—Milton.
"Much he the place admired, the person more."—Id.
"The broom its yellow leaf shed."—Langhorne.
If the nominative be a pronoun which cannot be mistaken for an objective, the words may possibly change places; as, "Silver and gold have I none."—Acts, iii, 6. "Created thing nought valued he nor shunn'd."—Milton, B. ii, l. 679. But such a transposition of two nouns can scarcely fail to render the meaning doubtful or obscure; as,
"This pow'r has praise, that virtue scarce can warm,
Till fame supplies the universal charm."—Dr. Johnson.
A relative or an interrogative pronoun is commonly placed at the head of its clause, and of course it precedes the verb which governs it; as, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest."—Acts, ix, 5. "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?"—Ib., vii, 52.
"Before their Clauses plac'd, by settled use,
The Relatives these Clauses introduce."—Ward's Gram., p. 86.
OBS. 3.—Every active-transitive verb or participle has some noun or pronoun for its object, or some pronominal adjective which assumes the relation of the objective case. Though verbs are often followed by the infinitive mood, or a dependent clause, forming a part of the logical predicate; yet these terms, being commonly introduced by a connecting particle, do not form such an object as is contemplated in our definition of a transitive verb. Its government of the objective, is the only proper criterion of this sort of verb. If, in the sentence, "Boys love to play," the former verb is transitive, as several respectable grammarians affirm; why not also in a thousand others; as, "Boys like to play;"—"Boys delight to play;"—"Boys long to play;"—"The boys seem to play;"—"The boys cease to play;"—"The boys ought to play;"—"The boys go out to play;"—"The boys are gone out to play;"—"The boys are allowed to play;" and the like? The construction in all is precisely the same, and the infinitive may follow one kind of verb just as well as an other. How then can the mere addition of this mood make any verb transitive? or where, on such a principle, can the line of distinction for transitive verbs be drawn? The infinitive, in fact, is governed by the preposition to; and the preceding verb, if it has no other object, is intransitive. It must, however, be confessed that some verbs which thus take the infinitive after them, cannot otherwise be intransitive; as, "A great mind disdains to hold any thing by courtesy."—Johnson's Life of Swift. "They require to be distinguished by a comma."—Murray's Gram., p. 272.
OBS. 4.—A transitive verb, as I have elsewhere shown, may both govern the objective case, and be followed by an infinitive also; as, "What have I to do with thee?"—John, ii, 4. This question, as one would naturally take it, implies, "I have nothing to do with thee;" and, by analogy, what is governed by have, and not by do; so that the latter verb, though not commonly intransitive, appears to be so here. Indeed the infinitive mood is often used without an objective, when every other part of the same verb would require one. Maunder's rule is, "Transitive verbs and participles govern either the objective case or the infinitive mode."—Comprehensive Gram., p. 14. Murray teaches, not only that, "The infinitive mood does the office of a substantive in the objective case; as, 'Boys love to play;'" but that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb; as, 'He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely.'"—See his Octavo Gram., pp. 184 and 194. And again: "Part of a sentence, as well as a noun or pronoun, may be said to be in the objective case, or to be put objectively, governed by the active verb; as, 'We sometimes see virtue in distress, but we should consider how great will be her ultimate reward.' Sentences or phrases under this circumstance, may be termed objective sentences or phrases."—Ib., p. 180.
OBS. 5.—If we admit that sentences, parts of sentences, infinitives, participles with their adjuncts, and other phrases, as well as nouns and pronouns, may be "in the objective case;" it will be no easy matter, either to define this case, or to determine what words do, or do not, govern it.[353] The construction of infinitives and participles will be noticed hereafter. But on one of Murray's examples, I would here observe, that the direct use of the infinitive for an objective noun is a manifest Grecism; as, "For to will is present with me; but to perform that which is good, I find not."—Octavo Gram., p. 184. That is, "the performance of that which is good, I find not." Or perhaps we may supply a noun after the verb, and take this text to mean, "But to perform that which is good, I find not the ability." Our Bible has it, "But how to perform that which is good. I find not;" as if the manner in which he might do good, was what the apostle found not: but Murray cites it differently, omitting the word how, as we see above. All active verbs to which something is subjoined by when, where, whence, how, or why, must be accounted intransitive, unless we suppose them to govern such nouns of time, place, degree, manner, or cause, as correspond to these connectives; as, "I know why she blushed." Here we might supply the noun reason, as, "I know the reason why she blushed;" but the word is needless, and I should rather parse know as being intransitive. As for "virtue in distress," if this is an "objective phrase," and not to be analyzed, we have millions of the same sort; but, if one should say, "Virtue in distress excites pity," the same phrase would demonstrate the absurdity of Murray's doctrine, because the two nouns here take two different cases.
OBS. 6.—The word that, which is often employed to introduce a dependent clause, is, by some grammarians, considered as a pronoun, representing the clause which follows it; as, "I know that Messias cometh."—John, iv, 25. This text they would explain to mean, "Messias cometh, I know that;" and their opinion seems to be warranted both by the origin and by the usual import of the particle. But, in conformity to general custom, and to his own views of the practical purposes of grammatical analysis, the author has ranked it with the conjunctions. And he thinks it better, to call those verbs intransitive, which are followed by that and a dependent clause, than to supply the very frequent ellipses which the other explanation supposes. To explain it as a conjunction, connecting an active-transitive verb and its object, as several respectable grammarians do, appears to involve some inconsistency. If that is a conjunction, it connects what precedes and what follows; but a transitive verb should exercise a direct government, without the intervention of a conjunction. On the other hand, the word that has not, in any such sentence, the inherent nature of a pronoun. The transposition above, makes it only a pronominal adjective; as, "Messias cometh, I know that fact." And in many instances such a solution is impracticable; as, "The people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them."—Luke, iv, 42. Here, to prove that to be a pronoun, the disciples of Tooke and Webster must resort to more than one imaginary ellipsis, and to such inversion as will scarcely leave the sense in sight.
OBS. 7.—In some instances the action of a transitive verb gives to its direct object an additional name, which is also in the objective case, the two words being in apposition; as, "Thy saints proclaim thee king."—Cowper. "And God called the firmament Heaven."—Bible. "Ordering them to make themselves masters of a certain steep eminence."—Rollin, ii, 67. And, in such a construction, the direct object is sometimes placed before the verb; though the name which results from the action, cannot be so placed: as, "And Simon he surnamed Peter."—Mark, iii, 15. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God."—Rev., iii, 12. Some grammarians seem not to have considered this phraseology as coming within the rule of apposition. Thus Webster: "We have some verbs which govern two words in the objective case; as,
'Did I request thee, maker, from my clay
To mold me man?'—Milton, 10, 744.
'God seems to have made him what he was.'—Life of Cowper."[354]—Philosophical Gram., p. 170. Improved Gram., p. 120. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 154; "Abridged Ed.," p. 119; and Fowler's E. Gram., §450. So Murray: "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case; as, 'The Author of my being formed me man.'—'They desired me to call them brethren.'—'He seems to have made him what he was.' "—Octavo Gram., p. 183. Yet this latter writer says, that in the sentence, "They appointed me executor," and others like it," the verb to be is understood."—Ib., p. 182. These then, according to his own showing, are instances of apposition; but I pronounce then such, without either confounding same cases with apposition, or making the latter a species of ellipsis. See Obs. 1st and 2d, under Rule 3d.
OBS. 8.—In general, if not always, when a verb is followed by two objectives which are neither in apposition nor connected by a conjunction, one of them is governed by a preposition understood; as, "I paid [to] him the money"—"They offered [to] me a seat"—"He asked [of] them the question"—"I yielded, and unlock'd [to] her all my heart."—Milton. In expressing such sentences passively, the object of the preposition is sometimes erroneously assumed for the nominative; as, "He was paid the money," in stead of, "The money was paid [to] him."—"I was offered a seat," in stead of, "A seat was offered [to] me." This kind of error is censured by Murray more than once, and yet he himself has, in very many instances, fallen into it. His first criticism on it, is in the following words: "We sometimes meet with such expressions as these: 'They were asked a question;' 'They were offered a pardon;' 'He hath been left a great estate by his father.' In these phrases, verbs passive are made to govern the objective case. This license is not to be approved. The expressions should be: 'A question was put to them;' 'A pardon was offered to them;' 'His father left him a great estate.'"—L. Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 183. See Obs. 12, below.
OBS. 9.—In the Latin syntax, verbs of asking and teaching are said to govern two accusatives; as, "Posce Deum veniam, Beg pardon of God."—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 207. "Docuit me grammaticam, He taught me grammar."—Grant, Adam, and others. And again: "When a verb in the active voice governs two cases, in the passive it retains the latter case; as, Doceor grammaticam, I am taught grammar."—Adam's Gram., p. 177. These writers however suggest, that in reality the latter accusative is governed, not by the verb, but by a preposition understood. "'Poscere deos veniam is 'to ask the gods for pardon.'"—Barnes's Philological Gram., p. 116. In general the English idiom does not coincide with what occurs in Latin under these rules. We commonly insert a preposition to govern one or the other of the terms. But we sometimes leave to the verb the objective of the person, and sometimes that of the thing; and after the two verbs ask and teach, we sometimes seem to leave both: as, "When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down, and ask of thee forgiveness."— Shakspeare. "In long journeys, ask your master leave to give ale to the horses."—Swift. "And he asked them of their welfare."—Gen., xliii, 27. "They asked of him the parable."—Mark, iv, 10. ("Interrogârunt eum de parabolâ."—Beza.) "And asking them questions"—Luke, ii, 46. "But teach them thy sons."—Deut., iv, 9. "Teach them diligently unto thy children"—Ib., vi, 7. '"Ye shall teach them your children."—Ib., xi, 19. "Shall any teach God knowledge?"—Job, xxi, 22. "I will teach you the fear of the Lord."—Psal, xxxiv, 11. "He will teach us of his ways."—Isaiah, ii, 3; Micah, iv, 2. "Let him that is taught in the word, communicate."—Gal., vi, 6.
OBS. 10.—After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or pronoun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be parsed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction. Consequently I do not admit, that any passive verb can properly govern an objective noun or pronoun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, "Give him bread to eat."—"Bread shall be given him"—Bible. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a "preposition understood;" and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, "Give [to] truth and virtue the same arms which you give [to] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail."—Blair's Rhet., p. 235. The questionable expression, "Ask me blessing," if interpreted analogically, must mean, "Ask for me a blessing," which is more correct and explicit; or, if me be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, "Ask of me a blessing," or, "Ask my blessing." So, "Ask your master leave," ought rather to be, "Ask of your master leave," "Ask your master for leave," or, "Ask your master's leave." The example from Mark ought to be, "They asked him about the parable." Again, the elliptical sentence, "Teach them thy sons," is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, "Teach them to thy sons." To teach is to tell things to persons, or to instruct persons in things; to ask is to request or demand things of or from persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons about or for things. These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more analogical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects.
OBS. 11.—Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you to this or of this, 'Persuadeo hoc tibi. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, Hoc tibi persuadetur, 'You are persuaded of this;' not, Tu persuaderis. 'He trusted me with this affair,' or 'He believed me in this,' Hoc mihi credidit.—Passively, Hoc mihi creditum est. 'I told you this,' Hoc tibi dixi. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' Hoc tibi dictum est; not, Tu dictus es." [No, surely: for, 'Tu dictus es,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'—and, if followed by any case, it must be the nominative.'] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, Hoc tibi dictum est, means not only 'This was told to you,' but 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS.' Liber mihi apatre promissus est, means both 'A book was promised (to) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' Is primum rogatua est sententiam, 'He was first asked for his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked of him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice." See Grants Latin Gram., p. 210.
OBS. 12.—Murray's second censure upon passive government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated. 'The bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the house of lords.' 'Thrasea was forbidden the presence of the emperor.' 'He was shown that very story in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: 'The bishops and abbots were allowed to have (or to take) their seats in the house of lords;' or, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed to the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden to approach the presence of the emperor;' or, 'The presence of the emperor was forbidden to Thrasea:' 'That very story was shown to him in one of his own books.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that—Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice."—Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised me a reward. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., pp. 110 and 112.
OBS. 13.—The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs—probably a vast majority—govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He paid my board; I told you so." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, to name, to mention. What is there that cannot be named or mentioned? Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, to transgress a law, or rule. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or something equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, "He lived a virtuous life."—"Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed"—Gen., xxxvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."—Isaiah, v, 6.
OBS. 14.—Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."—See Guy's Gram., p. 21; Murray's, 180; Ingersoll's, 183; Fisk's, 123; Smith's, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in any sense, or under any construction, that will not, in every sense, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it."—Wright's Gram., p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, "An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective."—Gram., p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as conceive, think, believe, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, "I conceived it (of it) in that light."—Guy's Gram., p. 21. "Did you conceive (of) him to be me?"—Ib., p. 28. With this idea, few will probably concur.
OBS. 15.—We sometimes find the pronoun me needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, "It ascends me into the brain; dries me there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours."—Shakspeare's Falstaff. "Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster me all to their captain, the heart."—Id. This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person; "Fare you well, Falstaff."—Shak. Here you was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb fare. "Fare thee well."—W. Scott. "Farewell to thee."—Id. These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, "Fare thou well." Again: "Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour."—2 Sam., ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy thee for thou. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs. It ought to be thus: "Turn thou aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay hold on one of the young men, and take to thyself his armour." So of the third person: "The king soon found reason to repent him of his provoking such dangerous enemies."—HUME: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 180. Here both of the pronouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.
"Good Margaret, run thee into the parlour;
There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice."—SHAK.: Much Ado.