The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XX.

OBS. 1.—To this rule, I incline to think, there are properly no other exceptions than the first two above; or, at least, that we ought to avoid, when we can, any additional anomalies. Yet, not to condemn with unbecoming positiveness what others receive for good English, I have subjoined two items more, which include certain other irregularities now very common, that, when examples of a like form occur, the reader may parse them as exceptions, if he does not choose to censure them as errors. The mixed construction in which participles are made to govern the possessive case, has already been largely considered in the observations on Rule 4th. Murray, Allen, Churchill, and many other grammarians, great and small, admit that participles may be made the subjects or the objects of verbs, while they retain the nature, government, and adjuncts, of participles; as, "Not attending to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 200; Comly's Gram., 188; Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., 170. "Polite is employed to signify their being highly civilized.'"—Blair's Rhet., p. 219. "One abhors being in debt."—Ib., p. 98; Jamieson's Rhet., 71; Murray's Gram., 144. "Who affected being a fine gentleman so unmercifully."—Spect., No. 496. "The minister's being attached to the project, prolonged their debate."—Nixon's Parser, p. 78. "It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that acting thus would gratify one passion; not acting, or acting otherwise, would gratify another."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 109. "But further, cavilling and objecting upon any subject is much easier than clearing up difficulties."—Bp. Butler's Charge to the Clergy of Durham, 1751.

OBS. 2.—W. Allen observes, "The use of the participle as a nominative, is one of the peculiarities of our language."—Elements of Gram., p. 171. He might have added, that the use of the participle as an objective governed by a verb, as a nominative after a verb neuter, or as a word governing the possessive, is also one of the peculiarities of our language, or at least an idiom adopted by no few of its recent writers. But whether any one of these four modern departures from General Grammar ought to be countenanced by us, as an idiom that is either elegant or advantageous, I very much doubt. They are all however sufficiently common in the style of reputable authors; and, however questionable their character, some of our grammarians seem mightily attached to them all. It becomes me therefore to object with submission. These mixed and irregular constructions of the participle, ought, in my opinion, to be generally condemned as false syntax; and for this simple reason, that the ideas conveyed by them may generally, if not always, be expressed more briefly, and more elegantly, by other phraseology that is in no respect anomalous. Thus, for the examples above: "Inattention to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."—"Polite is employed to signify a high degree of civilization;" or, "that they are highly civilized."—"One abhors debt."—"Who affected the fine gentleman so unmercifully."—"The minister's partiality to the project, prolonged their debate."—"It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that to act thus, would gratify one passion; and that not to act, or to act otherwise, would gratify another."—"But further, to cavil and object, upon any subject, is much easier than to clear up difficulties." Are not these expressions much better English than the foregoing quotations? And if so, have we not reason to conclude that the adoption of participles in such instances is erroneous and ungrammatical?

OBS. 3.—In Obs. 17th on Rule 4th, it was suggested, that in English the participle, without governing the possessive case, is turned to a greater number and variety of uses, than in any other language. This remark applies mainly to the participle in ing. Whether it is expedient to make so much of one sort of derivative, and endeavour to justify every possible use of it which can be plausibly defended, is a question well worthy of consideration. We have already converted this participle to such a multiplicity of purposes, and into so many different parts of speech, that one can well-nigh write a chapter in it, without any other words. This practice may have added something to the copiousness and flexibility of the language, but it certainly has a tendency to impair its strength and clearness. Not every use of participles is good, for which there may be found precedents in good authors. One may run to great excess in the adoption of such derivatives, without becoming absolutely unintelligible, and without violating any rule of our common grammars. For example, I may say of somebody, "This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate." Now, in what other language than ours, can a string of words anything like the following, come so near to a fair and literal translation of this long sentence? "This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating." Here are not all the uses to which our writers apply the participle in ing, but there would seem to be enough, without adding others that are less proper.

OBS. 4.—The active participles, admitting, allowing, considering, granting, speaking, supposing, and the like, are frequently used in discourse so independently, that they either relate to nothing, or to the pronoun I or we understood; as, "Granting this to be true, what is to be inferred from it?"—Murray's Gram., p. 195. This may be supposed to mean, "I, granting this to be true, ask what is to be inferred from it?" "The very chin was, modestly speaking, as long as my whole face."—Addison. Here the meaning may be, "I, modestly speaking, say." So of the following examples: "Properly speaking, there is no such thing as chance."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 172. "Because, generally speaking, the figurative sense of a word is derived from its proper sense."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 190. "But, admitting that two or three of these offend less in their morals than in their writings, must poverty make nonsense sacred?"—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 7. Some grammarians suppose such participles to be put absolute in themselves, so as to have no reference to any noun or pronoun; others, among whom are L. Murray and Dr. James P. Wilson, suppose them to be put absolute with a pronoun understood. On the former supposition, they form an other exception to the foregoing rule; on the latter, they do not: the participle relates to the pronoun, though both be independent of the rest of the sentence. If we supply the ellipsis as above, there is nothing put absolute.

OBS. 5.—Participles are almost always placed after the words on which their construction depends, and are distinguished from adjectives by this position; but when other words depend on the participle, or when several participles have the same construction, the whole phrase may come before the noun or pronoun: as, "Leaning my head upon my hand, I began to figure to myself the miseries of confinement."—Sterne.

"Immured in cypress shades, a sorcerer dwells."—Milton.

"Brib'd, bought, and bound, they banish shame and fear; Tell you they're stanch, and have a soul sincere."—Crabbe.

OBS. 6.—When participles are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb, they become adjectives; and, as such, they cannot govern an object after them. The following construction is therefore inaccurate: "When Caius did any thing unbecoming his dignity."—Jones's Church History, i, 87. "Costly and gaudy attire, unbecoming godliness."—Extracts, p. 185. Such errors are to be corrected by Note 15th to Rule 9th, or by changing the particle un to not: as, "Unbecoming to his dignity;" or, "Not becoming his dignity."

OBS. 7.—An imperfect or a preperfect participle, preceded by an article, an adjective, or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, becomes a verbal or participial noun; and, as such, it cannot with strict propriety, govern an object after it. A word which may be the object of the participle in its proper construction, requires the preposition of, to connect it with the verbal noun; as, 1. THE PARTICIPLE: "Worshiping idols, the Jews sinned."—"Thus worshiping idols,—In worshiping idols,—or, By worshiping idols, they sinned." 2. THE VERBAL NOUN: "The worshiping of idols,—Such worshiping of idols,—or, Their worshiping of idols, was sinful."—"In the worshiping of idols, there is sin."

OBS. 8.—It is commonly supposed that these two modes of expression are, in very many instances, equivalent to each other in meaning, and consequently interchangeable. How far they really are so, is a question to be considered. Example: "But if candour be a confounding of the distinctions between sin and holiness, a depreciating of the excellence of the latter, and at the same time a diminishing of the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."—The Friend, iv, 108. Here the nouns, distinctions, excellence, and evil, though governed by of, represent the objects of the forenamed actions; and therefore they might well be governed by confounding, depreciating, and diminishing, if these were participles. But if, to make them such, we remove the article and the preposition, the construction forsakes our meaning; for be confounding, (be) depreciating, and (be) diminishing, seem rather to be verbs of the compound form; and our uncertain nominatives after be, thus disappear in the shadow of a false sense. But some sensible critics tell us, that this preposition of should refer rather to the agent of the preceding action, than to its passive object; so that such a phrase as, "the teaching of boys," should signify rather the instruction which boys give, than that which they receive. If, for the sake of this principle, or for any other reason, we wish to avoid the foregoing phraseology, the meaning may be expressed thus: "But if your candour confound the distinctions between sin and holiness; if it depreciate the excellence of the latter, and at the same time diminish the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."

OBS. 9.—When the use of the preposition produces ambiguity or harshness, let a better expression be sought. Thus the sentence, "He mentions Newton's writing of a commentary," is not entirely free from either of these faults. If the preposition be omitted, the word writing will have a double construction, which is inadmissible, or at least objectionable. Some would say, "He mentions Newton writing a commentary." This, though not uncommon, is still more objectionable because it makes the leading word in sense the adjunct in construction. The meaning may be correctly expressed thus: "He mentions that Newton wrote a commentary." "Mr. Dryden makes a very handsome observation on Ovid's writing a letter from Dido to Æneas."—Spect., No. 62; Campbell's Rhet., p. 265; Murray's Key, ii, 253. Here the word writing is partly a noun and partly a participle. If we make it wholly a noun, by saying, "on Ovid's writing of a letter," or wholly a participle, by saying, "on Ovid writing a letter;" it may be doubted, whether we have effected any improvement. And again, if we adopt Dr. Lowth's advice, "Let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction;" we must make some change; and therefore ought perhaps to say; "on Ovid's conceit of writing a letter from Dido to Æneas." This is apparently what Addison meant, and what Dryden remarked upon; the latter did not speak of the letter itself, else the former would have said, "on Ovid's letter from Dido to Æneas."

OBS. 10.—When a needless possessive, or a needless article, is put before the participle, the correction is to be made, not by inserting of, but by expunging the article, according to Note 16th to Rule 1st, or the possessive, according to Note 5th to Rule 4th. Example: "By his studying the Scriptures he became wise."—Lennie's Gram., p. 91. Here his serves only to render the sentence incorrect; yet this spurious example is presented by Lennie to prove that a participle may take the possessive case before it, when the preposition of is not admissible after it. So, in stead of expunging one useless word, our grammarians often add an other and call the twofold error a correction; as, "For his avoiding of that precipice, he is indebted to his friend's care."—Murray's Key, ii, 201. Or worse yet: "It was from our misunderstanding of the directions that we lost our way."—Ibid. Here, not our and of only, but four other words, are worse than useless. Again: "By the exercising of our judgment, it is improved. Or thus: By exercising our judgment, it is improved."—Comly's Key in his Gram., 12th Ed., p. 188. Each of these pretended corrections is wrong in more respects than one. Say, "By exercising our judgement, we improve it" Or, "Our judgement is improved by being exercised" Again: "The loving of our enemies is a divine command; Or, loving our enemies [is a divine command]."—Ibid. Both of these are also wrong. Say, "'Love your enemies,' is a divine command." Or, "We are divinely commanded to love our enemies." Some are apt to jumble together the active voice and the passive, and thus destroy the unity even of a short sentence; as, "By exercising our memories, they are improved."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 226 and 195. "The error might have been avoided by repeating the substantive."—Murray's Gram., p. 172. "By admitting such violations of established grammatical distinctions, confusion would be introduced."—Ib., p. 187. In these instances, we have an active participle without an agent; and this, by the preposition by, is made an adjunct to a passive verb. Even the participial noun of this form, though it actually drops the distinction of voice, is awkward and apparently incongruous in such a relation.

OBS. 11.—When the verbal noun necessarily retains any adjunct of the verb or participle, it seems proper that the two words be made a compound by means of the hyphen: as, "Their hope shall be as the giving-up of the ghost."—Job, xi, 20. "For if the casting-away of them be the reconciling of the world."—Rom., xi, 15. "And the gathering-together of the waters called he seas."—Gen., i, 10. "If he should offer to stop the runnings-out of his justice."—Law and Grace, p. 26. "The stopping-short before the usual pause in the melody, aids the impression that is made by the description of the stone's stopping-short.'"—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 106. I do not find these words united in the places referred to, but this is nevertheless their true figure. Our authors and printers are lamentably careless, as well as ignorant, respecting the figure of words: for which part of grammar, see the whole of the third chapter, in Part First of this work; also observations on the fourth rule of syntax, from the 30th to the 35th. As certain other compounds may sometimes be broken by tmesis, so may some of these; as, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is."—Heb., x, 23. Adverbs may relate to participles, but nouns require adjectives. The following phrase is therefore inaccurate: "For the more easily reading of large numbers." Yet if we say, "For reading large numbers the more easily," the construction is different, and not inaccurate. Some calculator, I think, has it, "For the more easily reading large numbers." But Hutton says, "For the more easy reading of large numbers."—Hutton's Arith., p. 5; so Babcock's, p. 12. It would be quite as well to say, "For the greater ease in reading large numbers."

OBS. 12.—Many words of a participial form are used directly as nouns, without any article, adjective, or possessive case before them, and without any object or adjunct after them. Such is commonly the construction of the words spelling, reading, writing, ciphering, surveying, drawing, parsing, and many other such names of actions or exercises. They are rightly put by Johnson among "nouns derived from verbs;" for, "The [name of the] action is the same with the participle present, as loving, frighting, fighting, striking."—Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 10. Thus: "I like writing."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 171. "He supposed, with them, that affirming and denying were operations of the mind."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 35. "'Not rendering,' said Polycarp the disciple of John, 'evil for evil, or railing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for cursing."—Dymond, on War. Against this practice, there is seldom any objection; the words are wholly nouns, both in sense and construction. We call them participial nouns, only because they resemble participles in their derivation; or if we call them verbal nouns, it is because they are derived from verbs. But we too frequently find those which retain the government and the adjuncts of participles, used as nouns before or after verbs; or, more properly speaking, used as mongrels and nondescripts, a doubtful species, for which there is seldom any necessity, since the infinitive, the verbal or some other noun, or a clause introduced by the conjunction that, will generally express the idea in a better manner: as, "Exciting such disturbances, is unlawful." Say rather, "To excite such disturbances,—The exciting of such disturbances,—The excitation of such disturbances,—or, That one should excite such disturbances, is unlawful."

OBS. 13.—Murray says, "The word the, before the active participle, in the following sentence, and in all others of a similar construction, is improper, and should be omitted: 'The advising, or the attempting, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful.' It should be, 'Advising or attempting to excite disturbances.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 195. But, by his own showing, "the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive."—Ib., p. 192. And substantives, or nouns, by an other of his notes, can govern the infinitive mood, just as well as participles; or just as well as the verbs which he thinks would be very proper here; namely, "To advise or attempt to excite such disturbances."—Ib., p. 196. It would be right to say, "Any advice, or attempt, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful." And I see not that he has improved the text at all, by expunging the article. Advising and attempting, being disjunct nominatives to is, are nothing but nouns, whether the article be used or not; though they are rather less obviously such without it, and therefore the change is for the worse.

OBS. 14.—Lennie observes, "When a preposition"—(he should have said, When an other preposition—) "follows the participle, of is inadmissible; as, His depending on promises proved his ruin. His neglecting to study when young, rendered him ignorant all his life."—Prin. of E. Gram., 5th Ed., p. 65; 13th Ed., 91. Here on and to, of course, exclude of; but the latter may be changed to of, which will turn the infinitive into a noun: as, "His neglecting of study," &c. "Depending" and "neglecting," being equivalent to dependence and neglect, are participial nouns, and not "participles." Professor Bullions, too, has the same faulty remark, examples and all; (for his book, of the same title, is little else than a gross plagiarism from Lennie's;) though he here forgets his other erroneous doctrines, that, "A preposition should never be used before the infinitive," and that, "Active verbs do not admit a preposition after them." See Bullions's Prin. of E. Gram., pp. 91, 92, and 107.

OBS. 15.—The participle in ing is, on many occasions, equivalent to the infinitive verb, so that the speaker or writer may adopt either, just as he pleases: as, "So their gerunds are sometimes found having [or to have] an absolute or apparently neuter signification."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 234. "With tears that ceas'd not flowing" [or to flow].—Milton. "I would willingly have him producing [produce, or to produce] his credentials."—Barclay's Works, iii, 273. There are also instances, and according to my notion not a few, in which the one is put improperly for the other. The participle however is erroneously used for the infinitive much oftener than the infinitive for the participle. The lawful uses of both are exceedingly numerous; though the syntax of the participle, strictly speaking, does not include its various conversions into other parts of speech. The principal instances of regular equivalence between infinitives and participles, may be reduced to the following heads:

1. After the verbs see, hear, and feel, the participle in ing, relating to the objective, is often equivalent to the infinitive governed by the verb; as, "I saw him running"—"I heard it howling."—W. Allen. "I feel the wind blowing." Here the verbs, run, howl, and blow, might be substituted. 2. After intransitive verbs signifying to begin or to continue, the participle in ing, relating to the nominative, may be used in stead of the infinitive connected to the verb; as, "The ass began galloping with all his might."—Sandford and Merton. "It commenced raining very hard."—Silliman. "The steamboats commenced running on Saturday."—Daily Advertiser. "It is now above three years since he began printing."—Dr. Adam's Pref. to Rom. Antiq. "So when they continued asking him."—John, viii, 7. Greek, "[Greek: Os epemenon erotontes auton.]" Latin, "Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum."—Vulgate. "Cùm autem perseverarent eum interrogare."—Beza. "Then shall ye continue following the Lord your God."—1 Sam., xii, 14. "Eritis sequentes Dominum Deum vestrum."—Vulgate. "As she continued praying before the Lord."—1 Sam., i, 12. "Cùm ilia multiplicaret preces coram Domino."—Vulgate. "And they went on beating down one an other."—2 Sam., xiv, 16. "Make the members of them go on rising and growing in their importance."—Blair's Rhet., p. 116. "Why do you keep teasing me?"

3. After for, in, of, or to, and perhaps some other prepositions, the participle may in most cases be varied by the infinitive, which is governed by to only; as, "We are better fitted for receiving the tenets and obeying the precepts of that faith which will make us wise unto salvation."—West's Letters, p. 51. That is—"to receive the tenets and obey the precepts." "Men fit for fighting, practised in fighting, proud of fighting, accustomed to fighting."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 172. That is, "fit to fight," &c. "What is the right path, few take the trouble of inquiring."—Murray's Key, 8vo. ii, 235. Better, perhaps:—"few take the trouble to inquire."

OBS. 16.—One of our best grammarians says, "The infinitive, in the following sentences, should be exchanged for the participle: 'I am weary to bear them.' Is. i, 14. 'Hast thou, spirit, perform'd to point the tempest?' Shak."—Allen's Gram., p. 172. This suggestion implies, that the participle would be here not only equivalent to the infinitive in sense, but better in expression. It is true, the preposition to does not well express the relation between weary and bear; and, doubtless, some regard should be had to the meaning of this particle, whenever it is any thing more than an index of the mood. But the critic ought to have told us how he would make these corrections. For in neither case does the participle alone appear to be a fit substitute for the infinitive, either with or without the to; and the latter text will scarcely bear the participle at all, unless we change the former verb; as, "Hast thou, spirit, done pointing the tempest?" The true meaning of the other example seems somewhat uncertain. The Vulgate has it, "Laboravi sustinens," "I have laboured bearing them;" the French Bible, "Je suis las de les souffrir," "I am tired of bearing them;" the Septuagint, "[Greek: Ouketi anæso tas hamartias humon,]" "I will no more forgive your sins."

OBS. 17.—In the following text, the infinitive is used improperly, nor would the participle in its stead make pure English: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, to have been continually before me."—Ps. 1. 8. According to the French version, "to have been" should be "which are;" but the Septuagint and the Vulgate take the preceding noun for the nominative, thus: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, but thy burnt-offerings are continually before me."

OBS. 18.—As the preposition to before the infinitive shows the latter to be "that towards which the preceding verb is directed," verbs of desisting, omitting, preventing, and avoiding, are generally found to take the participle after them, and not the infinitive; because, in such instances, the direction of effort seems not to be so properly to, or towards, as from the action.[419] Where the preposition from is inserted, (as it most commonly is, after some of these verbs.) there is no irregularity in the construction of the participle; but where the participle immediately follows the verb, it is perhaps questionable whether it ought to be considered the object of the verb, or a mere participle relating to the nominative which precedes. If we suppose the latter, the participle may be parsed by the common rule; if the former, it must be referred to the third exception above. For example:

1. After verbs of DESISTING; as, "The Cryer used to proclaim, DIXERUNT, i. e. They have done speaking."—Harris's Hermes, p. 132. "A friend is advised to put off making love to Lalage."—Philological Museum, i, 446. "He forbore doing so, on the ground of expediency."—The Friend, iv, 35. "And yet architects never give over attempting to reconcile these two incompatibles."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 338. "Never to give over seeking and praying for it."—N. Y. Observer. "Do not leave off seeking."—President Edwards. "Then Satan hath done flattering and comforting."—Baxter. "The princes refrained talking."—Job, xxix, 9. "Principes cessabant loqui."—Vulgate. Here it would be better to say, "The princes refrained from talking." But Murray says, "From seems to be superfluous after forbear: as, 'He could not forbear from appointing the pope,' &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 203. But "forbear to appoint" would be a better correction; for this verb is often followed by the infinitive; as, "Forbear to insinuate."—West's Letters, p. 62. "And he forbare to go forth."—1 Sam., xxiii, 13. The reader will observe, that, "never to give over" or "not to leave off," is in fact the same thing as to continue; and I have shown by the analogy of other languages, that after verbs of continuing the participle is not an object of government; though possibly it may be so, in these instances, which are somewhat different. 2. After verbs of OMITTING; as, "He omits giving an account of them."—Tooke's Diversions of Purley, i, 251. I question the propriety of this construction; and yet, "omits to give" seems still more objectionable. Better, "He omits all account of them." Or, "He neglects to give, or forbears to give, any account of them." L. Murray twice speaks of apologizing, "for the use he has made of his predecessors' labours, and for omitting to insert their names."—Octavo Gram., Pref., p. vii; and Note, p. 73. The phrase, "omitting to insert," appears to me a downright solecism; and the pronoun their is ambiguous, because there are well-known names both for the men and for their labours, and he ought not to have omitted either species wholly, as he did. "Yet they absolutely refuse doing so, one with another."—Harris's Hermes, p. 264. Better, "refuse to do so." "I had as repeatedly declined going."—Leigh Hunt's Byron, p. 15.

3. After verbs of PREVENTING; as, "Our sex are happily prevented from engaging in these turbulent scenes."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 74. "To prevent our frail natures from deviating into bye paths [write by-paths] of error."—Ib., p. 100. "Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly."—Blair's Rhet., p. 99; Murray's Gram., p. 303; Jamieson's Rhet., p. 72. This construction, though very common, is palpably wrong: because its most natural interpretation is, "Prudence improperly prevents our speech or action." These critics ought to have known enough to say, "Prudence prevents us from speaking or acting improperly." "This, however, doth not hinder pronunciation to borrow from singing."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 70. Here the infinitive is used, merely because it does not sound well to say, "from borrowing from singing;" but the expression might very well be changed thus, "from being indebted to singing." "'This by no means hinders the book to be a useful one.'—Geddes. It should be, 'from being.'"—Churchill's Gram., p. 318.

4. After verbs of AVOIDING: as, "He might have avoided treating of the origin of ideas."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 28. "We may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 281. "But carefully avoid being at any time ostentatious and affected."—Blair's Rhet., p. 233. "Here I cannot avoid mentioning[420] the assistance I have received."—Churchill's Gram., p. iv. "It is our duty to avoid leading others into temptation,"—West's Letters, p. 33. "Nay, such a garden should in some measure avoid imitating nature."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 251. "I can promise no entertainment to those who shun thinking."—Ib., i, 36. "We cannot help being of opinion."—ENCYC. BRIT. Murray's Gram., p. 76. "I cannot help being of opinion."—Blair's Rhet., p. 311. "I cannot help mentioning here one character more."—Hughes. Spect., No. 554. "These would sometimes very narrowly miss being catched away."—Steele. "Carleton very narrowly escaped being taken."—Grimshaw's Hist., p. 111. Better, "escaped from being taken;"—or, "escaped capture."

OBS. 19.—In sentences like the following, the participle seems to be improperly made the object of the verb: "I intend doing it."—"I remember meeting him." Better, "I intend to do it."—"I remember to have met him." According to my notion, it is an error to suppose that verbs in general may govern participles. If there are any proper instances of such government, they would seem to be chiefly among verbs of quitting or avoiding. And even here the analogy of General Grammar gives countenance to a different solution; as, "They left beating of Paul."—Acts, xxi, 32. Better, "They left beating Paul;"—or, "They quit beating Paul." Greek, "[Greek: Epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon.]" Latin, "Cessaverunt percutientes Paulum."—Montanus. "Cessarunt coedere Paulum."—Beza. "Cessaverunt percutere Paulum."—Vulgate. It is true, the English participle in ing differs in some respects from that which usually corresponds to it in Latin or Greek; it has more of a substantive character, and is commonly put for the Latin gerund. If this difference does not destroy the argument from analogy, the opinion is still just, that left and quit are here intransitive, and that the participle beating relates to the pronoun they. Such is unequivocally the construction of the Greek text, and also of the literal Latin of Arias Montanus. But, to the mere English grammarian, this method of parsing will not be apt to suggest itself: because, at first sight, the verbs appear to be transitive, and the participle in ing has nothing to prove it an adjunct of the nominative, and not the object of the verb—unless, indeed, the mere fact that it is a participle, is proof of this.

OBS. 20.—Our great Compiler, Murray, not understanding this construction, or not observing what verbs admit of it, or require it, has very unskillfully laid it down as a rule, that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb, expressed or understood: as, 'By promising much and performing but little, we become despicable.' 'He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 194.[421] This very popular author seems never to have known that participles, as such, may be governed in English by prepositions. And yet he knew, and said, that "prepositions do not, like articles and pronouns, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive."—Ibid. This he avouches in the same breath in which he gives that "nature" to a participle and its adverb! For, by a false comma after much, he cuts his first "substantive phrase" absurdly in two; and doubtless supposes a false ellipsis of by before the participle performing. Of his method of resolving the second example, some notice has already been taken, in Observations 4th and 5th on Rule 5th. Though he pretends that the whole phrase is in the objective case, "the truth is, the assertion grammatically affects the first word only;" which in one aspect he regards as a noun, and in an other as a participle: whereas he himself, on the preceding page, had adopted from Lowth a different doctrine, and cautioned the learner against treating words in ing, "as if they were of an amphibious species, partly nouns and partly verbs;" that is, "partly nouns and partly participles;" for, according to Murray, Lowth, and many others, participles are verbs. The term, "substantive phrase," itself a solecism, was invented merely to cloak this otherwise bald inconsistency. Copying Lowth again, the great Compiler defines a phrase to be "two or more words rightly put together;" and, surely, if we have a well-digested system of grammar, whatsoever words are rightly put together, may be regularly parsed by it. But how can one indivisible word be consistently made two different parts of speech at once? And is not this the situation of every transitive participle that is made either the subject or the object of a verb? Adjuncts never alter either the nature or the construction of the words on which they depend; and participial nouns differ from participles in both. The former express actions as things; the latter generally attribute them to their agents or recipients.

OBS. 21.—The Latin gerund is "a kind of verbal noun, partaking of the nature of a participle."—Webster's Dict. "A gerund is a participial noun, of the neuter gender, and singular-number, declinable like a substantive, having no vocative, construed like a substantive, and governing the case of its verb."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 70. In the Latin gerund thus defined, there is an appearance of ancient classical authority for that "amphibious species" of words of which so much notice has already been taken. Our participle in ing, when governed by a preposition, undoubtedly corresponds very nearly, both in sense and construction, to this Latin gerund; the principal difference being, that the one is declined, like a noun, and the other is not. The analogy, however, is but lamely maintained, when we come to those irregular constructions in which the participle is made a half-noun in English. It is true, the gerund of the nominative case may be made the subject of a verb in Latin; but we do not translate it by the English participle, but rather by the infinitive, or still oftener by the verb with the auxiliary must: as, "Vivendum est mihi rectè, I must live well."—Grant's L. Gram., p. 232. This is better English than the nearer version, "Living correctly is necessary for me;" and the exact imitation, "Living is to me correctly," is nonsense. Nor does the Latin gerund often govern the genitive like a noun, or ever stand as the direct object of a transitive verb, except in some few doubtful instances about which the grammarians dispute. For, in fact, to explain this species of words, has puzzled the Latin grammarians about as much as the English; though the former do not appear to have fallen into those palpable self-contradictions which embarrass the instructions of the latter.

OBS. 22.—Dr. Adam says, "The gerund in English becomes a substantive, by prefixing the article to it, and then it is always to be construed with the preposition of; as, 'He is employed in writing letters,' or, 'in the writing of letters:' but it is improper to say, 'in the writing letters,' or, 'in writing of letters.'"—Latin and English Gram., p. 184. This doctrine is also taught by Lowth, Priestley, Murray, Comly, Chandler, and many others; most of whom extend the principle to all participles that govern the possessive case; and they might as well have added all such as are made either the subjects or the objects of verbs, and such as are put for nominatives after verbs neuter. But Crombie, Allen, Churchill, S. S. Greene, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and some others, teach that participles may perform these several offices of a substantive, without dropping the regimen and adjuncts of participles. This doctrine, too, Murray and his copyists absurdly endeavour to reconcile with the other, by resorting to the idle fiction of "substantive phrases" endued with all these powers: as, "His being at enmity with Cæsar was the cause of perpetual discord."—Crombie's Treatise, p. 237; Churchill's Gram., p. 141. "Another fault is allowing it to supersede the use of a point."— Churchill's Gram., p. 372. "To be sure there is a possibility of some ignorant reader's confounding the two vowels in pronunciation."—Ib., p. 375. It is much better to avoid all such English as this. Say, rather, "His enmity with Cæsar was the cause of perpetual discord."—"An other fault is the allowing of it to supersede the use of a point."—"To be sure, there is a possibility that some ignorant reader may confound the two vowels, in pronunciation."

OBS. 23.—In French, the infinitive is governed by several different prepositions, and the gerundive by one only, the preposition en,—which, however, is sometimes suppressed; as, "en passant, en faisant,—il alloit courant."—Traité des Participes, p. 2. In English, the gerundive is governed by several different prepositions, and the infinitive by one only, the preposition to,—which, in like manner, is sometimes suppressed; as, "to pass, to do,—I saw him run." The difficulties in the syntax of the French participle in ant, which corresponds to ours in ing, are apparently as great in themselves, as those which the syntax of the English word presents; but they result from entirely different causes, and chiefly from the liability there is of confounding the participle with the verbal adjective, which is formed from it. The confounding of it with the gerundive is now, in either language, of little or no consequence, since in modern French, as well as in English, both are indeclinable. For this reason, I have framed the syntactical rule for participles so as to include under that name the gerund, or gerundive, which is a participle governed by a preposition. The great difficulty with us, is, to determine whether the participle ought, or ought not, to be allowed to assume other characteristics of a noun, without dropping those of a participle, and without becoming wholly a noun. The liability of confounding the English participle with the verbal or participial adjective, amounts to nothing more than the occasional misnaming of a word in parsing; or perhaps an occasional ambiguity in the style of some writer, as in the following citation: "I am resolved, 'let the newspapers say what they please of canvassing beauties, haranguing toasts, and mobbing demireps,' not to believe one syllable."—Jane West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 74. From these words, it is scarcely possible to find out, even with the help of the context whether these three sorts of ladies are spoken of as the canvassers, haranguers, and mobbers, or as being canvassed, harangued, and mobbed. If the prolixity and multiplicity of these observations transcend the reader's patience, let him consider that the questions at issue cannot be settled by the brief enunciation of loose individual opinions, but must be examined in the light of all the analogies and facts that bear upon them. So considerable are the difficulties of properly distinguishing the participle from the verbal adjective in French, that that indefatigable grammarian, Girault Du Vivier, after completing his Grammaire des Grammaires in two large octavo volumes, thought proper to enlarge his instructions on this head, and to publish them in a separate book, (Traité des Participes,) though we have it on his own authority, that the rule for participles had already given rise to a greater number of dissertations and particular treatises than any other point in French grammar.

OBS. 24.—A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his strength's declining."—"He was sensible of his strength declining." In the former sentence, the noun strength should be in the objective case, governed by felt; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by declining. Thus: "He felt his strength declining;" i.e., "felt it decline."—"He was sensible of his strength's declining;" i.e., "of its decline." These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable. This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th. But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.

OBS. 25.—Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science. And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate. The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once. The absolute necessity of classing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof. Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of verbs, participles, and nouns, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them. For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T. O. Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English grammar. Of the participle the latter gives no formal definition, but he represents it as "a form, in which the action denoted by the verb is capable of being joined to a noun as its quality, or accident."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is a mere mode of the verb is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."—Ib., p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a noun: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking s at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has the comings in of a prince, may be ruined by his own gaming, or his wife's squandering.'"—Ib., p. 144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the s, not at the end, but in the middle; for comings-in, (an obsolete expression for revenues,) is not two words, but one. Nor are gaming and squandering, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles become nouns when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "is" and "may be" are not nouns, but participles: "Walking is the best exercise, though riding may be more pleasant."—Ib., p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguishing of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.

OBS. 26.—Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's—and no worse than what the reader may find in many an English Grammar now in use. This author's fault is not so much a lack of learning or of comprehension, as of order and discrimination. We see in him, that it is possible for a man to be well acquainted with English authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter miserably in describing the nature and uses of the English participle. Like many others, he does not acknowledge this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but commences his account of it by the following absurdity: "The participles are adjectives derived from the verb; as, pursuing, pursued, having pursued."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 62. This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but merges the whole of the former species in a part of speech of which he had not even recognized the latter as a subdivision: "An adjective shows the quality of a thing. Adjectives may be reduced to five classes: 1. Common—2. Proper—3. Numeral—4. Pronominal—5. Compound."—Ib., p. 47. Now, if "participles are adjectives," to which of these five classes do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth class, without which this distribution is false and incomplete: as, "a loving father; an approved copy." The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun. But says our author, "Participles, as simple adjectives, belong to a noun; as, a loving father; an approved copy;—as parts of the verb, they have the same government as their verbs have; as, his father, recalling the pleasures of past years, joined their party."—Ib., p. 170. What confusion is this! a complete jumble of adjectives, participles, and "parts of verbs!" Again: "Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early rising is conducive to health; I like writing; we depend on seeing you."—Ib., p. 171. Here rising and writing are nouns; but seeing is a participle, because it is active and governs you, Compare this second jumble with the definition above. Again he proceeds: "To participles thus used, many of our best authors prefix the article; as, 'The being chosen did not prevent disorderly behaviour.' Bp. Tomline. 'The not knowing how to pass our vacant hours.' Seed."—Ib., p. 171. These examples I take to be bad English. Say rather, "The state of election did not prevent disorderly behaviour."—"The want of some entertainment for our vacant hours." The author again proceeds: "If a noun limits the meaning of a participle thus used, that noun is put in the genitive; as, your father's coming was unexected."—Ib., p. 171. Here coming is a noun, and no participle at all. But the author has a marginal note, "A possessive pronoun is equivalent to a genitive;" (ibid.;) and he means to approve of possessives before active participles: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from our having received the words through a French medium."—Ib., p. 116. This brings us again to that difficult and apparently unresolvable problem, whether participles as such, by virtue of their mixed gerundive character, can, or cannot, govern the possessive case; a question, about which, the more a man examines it, the more he may doubt.

OBS. 27.—But, before we say any thing more about the government of this case, let us look at our author's next paragraph on participles: "An active participle, preceded by an article or by a genitive, is elegantly followed by the preposition of, before the substantive which follows it; as, the compiling of that book occupied several years; his quitting of the army was unexpected."—Allen's Gram., p. 171. Here the participial nouns compiling and quitting are improperly called active participles, from which they are certainly as fairly distinguished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever. And this complete distinction the author considers at least an elegance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition. And he immediately adds: "When this construction produces ambiguity, the expression must be varied."—Ib., p. 171. This suggestion is left without illustration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray's remarks, in which it is said: "A phrase in which the article precedes the present participle and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition. 'He expressed the pleasure he had in the hearing of the philosopher,' is capable of a different sense from, 'He expressed the pleasure he had in hearing the philosopher.'"—Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 193; R. C. Smith's Gram., 161; Ingersoll's, 199; and others. Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word hearing a "present participle;" and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful comma, still more absurdly supposes it ambiguous: whereas the phrase, "in the hearing of the philosopher," means only, "in the philosopher's hearing;" and not, "in hearing the philosopher," or, "in hearing of the philosopher." But the true question is, would it be right to say, "He expressed the pleasure he had in the philosopher's hearing him?" For here it would be equivocal to say, "in the philosopher's hearing of him;" and some aver, that of would be wrong, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear. But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and compare it with his own doctrines. To say, "from our having received of the words through a French medium," would certainly be no elegance; and if it be not an ambiguity, it is something worse. The expression, then, "must be varied." But varied how? Is it right without the of, though contrary to the author's rule for elegance?

OBS. 28.—The observations which have been made on this point, under the rule for the possessive case, while they show, to some extent, the inconsistencies in doctrine, and the improprieties of practice, into which the difficulties of the mixed participle have betrayed some of our principal grammarians, bring likewise the weight of much authority and reason against the custom of blending without distinction the characteristics of nouns and participles in the same word or words; but still they may not be thought sufficient to prove this custom to be altogether wrong; nor do they pretend to have fully established the dogma, that such a construction is in no instance admissible. They show, however, that possessives before participles are seldom to be approved; and perhaps, in the present instance, the meaning might be quite as well expressed by a common substantive, or the regular participial noun: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from our reception of the words—or our receiving of the words—through a French medium." But there are some examples which it is not easy to amend, either in this way, or in any other; as, "The miscarriages of youth have very much proceeded from their being imprudently indulged, or left to themselves."—Friends' N. E. Discipline, p. 13. And there are instances too, of a similar character, in which the possessive case cannot be used. For example: "Nobody will doubt of this being a sufficient proof."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 66. "But instead of this being the fact of the case, &c."—Butlers Analogy, p. 137. "There is express historical or traditional evidence, as ancient as history, of the system of religion being taught mankind by revelation."—Ibid. "From things in it appearing to men foolishness."—Ib., p. 175. "As to the consistency of the members of our society joining themselves to those called free-masons."—N. E. Discip., p. 51. "In either of these cases happening, the person charging is at liberty to bring the matter before the church, who are the only judges now remaining."—Ib., p. 36; Extracts, p. 57. "Deriving its efficacy from the power of God fulfilling his purpose."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 235. "We have no idea of any certain portion of time intervening between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 33: Murray's, i, 70; Emmons's, 41; and others. The following example therefore, however the participle may seem to be the leading word in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: "The reason and time of the Son of God's becoming man."—Brown's Divinity, p. xxii. Many writers would here be satisfied with merely omitting the possessive sign; as does Churchill, in the following example: "The chief cause of this appears to me to lie in grammarians having considered them solely as the signs of tense."—New Gram., p. 243. But this sort of construction, too, whenever the noun before the participle is not the leading word in sense, is ungrammatical. In stead, therefore, of stickling for choice between two such errors, we ought to adopt some better expression; as, "The reason and time of the Saviour's incarnation."—"The chief cause of this appears to me to be, that grammarians have considered them solely as signs of tense."

OBS. 29.—It is certain that the noun or pronoun which "limits the meaning of a participle," cannot always be "put in the genitive" or possessive case; for the sense intended sometimes positively forbids such a construction, and requires the objective: as, "A syllable consists of one or more letters forming one sound."—Allen's Gram., p. 29. The word representing or denoting would here be better than forming, because the letters do not, strictly speaking, form the sound. But chiefly let it be noticed, that the word letters could not with any propriety have been put in the possessive case. Nor is it always necessary or proper, to prefer that case, where the sense may be supposed to admit it; as, "'The example which Mr. Seyer has adduced, of the gerund governing the genitive of the agent.' Dr. Crombie."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 237. "Which possibly might have been prevented by parents doing their duty."—N. E. Discipline, p. 187. "As to the seeming contradiction of One being Three, and Three One."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 113. "You have watched them climbing from chair to chair."—PIERPONT: Liberator, Vol. x, p. 22. "Whether the world came into being as it is, by an intelligent Agent forming it thus, or not."—Butler's Analogy, p. 129. "In the farther supposition of necessary agents being thus rewarded and punished."—Ib., p. 140. "He grievously punished the Israelites murmuring for want of water."—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 21. Here too the words, gerund, parents, One, Three, them, Agent, agents, and Israelites, are rightly put in the objective case; yet doubtless some will think, though I do not, that they might as well have been put in the possessive. Respectable writers sometimes use the latter case, where the former would convey the same meaning, and be more regular; as, "Which is used, as active verbs often are, without its regimen's being expressed."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 302. Omit the apostrophe and s; and, if you please, the word being also. "The daily instances of men's dying around us."—Butler's Analogy, p. 113. Say rather,—"of men dying around us." "To prevent our rashly engaging in arduous or dangerous enterprises."—Brown's Divinity, p. 17. Say, "To prevent us from," &c. The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong: "The kitchen too now begins to give 'dreadful note of preparation;' not from armourers accomplishing the knights, but from the shop maid's chopping force meat, the apprentice's cleaning knives, and the journeyman's receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 66. It should be—"not from armorers accomplishing the knights, but from the shopmaid chopping forcemeat, the apprentice cleaning knives, and the journeyman receiving," &c. The nouns are the principal words, and the participles are adjuncts. They might be separated by commas, if semicolons were put where the commas now are.

OBS. 30.—Our authors, good and bad, critics and no critics, with few exceptions, write sometimes the objective case before the participle, and sometimes the possessive, under precisely the same circumstances; as, "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody suffering."—Blair's Rhet., p. 122. "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 327. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody suffering."—Murray's Exercises, 8vo, p. 60. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 195. "And I explain what is meant by the nominative case governing the verb, and by the verb agreeing with its nominative case."—Rand's Gram., p. 31. "Take the verb study, and speak of John's studying his lesson, at different times."—Ib., p. 53. "The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., p. 112. "The following are examples of an adverb's qualifying a whole sentence."—Ib., p. 128. "Where the noun is the name of a person, the cases may also be distinguished by the nominative's answering to WHO, and the objective to WHOM."—Hart's Gram., p. 46. "This depends chiefly on their being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel sound being long or short."—Churchill's Gram., p. 182. "When they speak of a monosyllable having the grave or the acute accent."—Walker's Key, p. 328. Here some would erroneously prefer the possessive case before "having;" but, if any amendment can be effected it is only by inserting as there. "The event of Maria's loving her brother."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 55. "Between that and the man being on it."—Ib., p. 59. "The fact of James placing himself."—Ib., p. 166. "The event of the persons' going."—Ib., p. 165. Here persons' is carelessly put for person's, i.e., James's: the author was parsing the puerile text, "James went into a store and placed himself beside Horatio."—Ib., p. 164. And I may observe, in passing, that Murray and Blair are both wrong in using commas with the adverb presently above.

OBS. 31.—It would be easy to fill a page with instances of these two cases, the objective and the possessive, used, as I may say, indiscriminately; nor is there any other principle by which we can determine which of them is right, or which preferable, than that the leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in the construction, and that the participle, if it remain such, ought rather to relate to its noun, as being the adjunct, than to govern it in the possessive, as being the principal term. To what extent either of these cases may properly be used before the participle, or in what instances either of them may be preferable to the other, it is not very easy to determine. Both are used a great deal too often, filling with blemishes the style of many authors: the possessive, because the participle is not the name of any thing that can be possessed; the objective, because no construction can be right in which the relation of the terms is not formed according to the sense. The former usage I have already criticised to a great extent. Let one example suffice here: "There can be no objection to a syllable's being long, on the ground of its not being so long, or so much protracted, as some other long syllables are."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer syllable to syllable's, but none would be apt to put it for its, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a syllable as being long, on the ground that it is not so long as some other syllables."

OBS. 32.—It should be observed, that the use of as between the participle and the noun is very often better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military success as forming a claim to civil position."—Boston Daily Advertiser. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any one being chosen for a pattern."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its authenticity being shaken, it has been rendered more sure than ever."— West's Letters, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper candidate being nominated by either party."—Liberator, Vol. x. p. 9. "On the first stone being thrown, it was returned by a fire of musketry."—Ib., p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent person being circumvented by bribery."—Blair's Rhet., p. 276. "Whose principles forbid them taking part in the administration of the government."— Liberator, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross bodies being ourselves."—Butler's Analogy, p. 150. "In consequence of this revelation being made."—Ib., p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "Scarcely is any one ever chosen for a pattern."— "Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken, has been rendered more sure than ever."—"When there is no longer a possibility that a proper candidate will be nominated by either party."—"As soon as the first stone was thrown, there was returned a fire of musketry."—"To raise a cry, as if an innocent person had been circumvented by bribery."— "Whose principles forbid them to take part in the administration of the government."—"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies are ourselves."—"In consequence of this revelation which is made."

OBS. 33.—A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some late writers have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady Macbeth's walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.' This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, Lady Macbeth; whereas the meaning is, not that Lady Macbeth, but her walking in her sleep, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my horse's running to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my horse running to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."— Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram., p. 15. (See Crombie's Treatise, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my horse running to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my horse's running? means, he has run, do you think he ran well?"— Lennie's Gram., p. 91; Brace's Gram., 94. See Bullions's Gram., p. 107; Hiley's, 94; Murray's, 8vo. 195: Ingersoll's, 201: and many others.

OBS. 34.—Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word walking, preceded by a possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a noun, and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use of possessives before participles, and even to hold all phraseology of this kind "unobjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of that blunder is different from the thousand errors or irregularities which they intend to shelter under it. To call a lady an "incident," is just as far from any Latin idiom, as it is from good English; whereas the very thing which they thus object to at first, they afterwards approve in this text: "What think you of my horse running to-day?" This phraseology corresponds with "the Latin idiom;" and it is this, that, in fact, they begin with pronouncing to be "less correct" than, "What think you of my horse's running to-day?"

OBS. 35.—Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction of signification; as, if "the horse's running to-day," must needs imply a past action, though, (they suppose,) "the pupil's composing frequently," or, "the horse running to-day," signifies a future one. This distinction of time is altogether imaginary; and the notion, that to prefer the possessive case before participles, is merely to withstand an error of "some late writers," is altogether false. The instructions above cited, therefore, determine nothing rightly, except the inaccuracy of one very uncommon form of expression. For, according to our best grammarians, the simple mode of correction there adopted will scarcely be found applicable to any other text. It will not be right where the participle happens to be transitive, or even where it is qualified by an adverb. From their subsequent examples, it is plain that these gentlemen think otherwise; but still, who can understand what they mean by "the common mode of expression?" What, for instance, would they substitute for the following very inaccurate expression from the critical belles-lettres of Dr. Blair? "A mother accusing her son, and accusing him of such actions, as having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."—Blair's Lectures, p. 274. Would they say. "A mother's accusing her son, &c., were circumstances," &c.? Is this their "common mode of expression?" and if it is, do they not make "common" what is no better English than the Doctor's? If, to accuse a son, and to accuse him greatly, can be considered different circumstances of the same prosecution, the sentence may be corrected thus: "A mother's accusing of her son, and her charging of him with such actions, as those of having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."

OBS. 36.—On several occasions, as in the tenth and twelfth observations on Rule 4th, and in certain parts of the present series, some notice has been taken of the equivalence or difference of meaning, real or supposed, between the construction of the possessive, and that of an other case, before the participle; or between the participial and the substantive use of words in ing. Dr. Priestley, to whom, as well as to Dr. Lowth, most of our grammarians are indebted for some of their doctrines respecting this sort of derivatives, pretends to distinguish them, both as constituting different parts of speech, and as conveying different meanings. In one place, he says, "When a word ending in ing is preceded by an article, it seems to be used as a noun; and therefore ought not to govern an other word, without the intervention of a preposition."—Priestley's Gram., p. 157. And in an other: "Many nouns are derived from verbs, and end in ing, like participles of the present tense. The difference between these nouns and participles is often overlooked, and the accurate distinction of the two senses not attended to. If I say, What think you of my horse's running to-day, I use the NOUN running, and suppose the horse to have actually run; for it is the same thing as if I had said, What think you of the running of my horse. But if I say, What think you of my horse running to-day, I use the PARTICIPLE, and I mean to ask, whether it be proper that my horse should run or not: which, therefore, supposes that he had not then run."—Ib., p. 122. Whatever our other critics say about the horse running or the horse's running, they have in general borrowed from Priestley, with whom the remark originated, as it here stands. It appears that Crombie, Murray, Maunder, Lennie, Bullions, Ingersoll, Barnard, Hiley, and others, approve the doctrine thus taught, or at least some part of it; though some of them, if not all, thereby contradict themselves.

ODS. 37.—By the two examples here contrasted, Priestley designed to establish a distinction, not for these texts only, but for all similar expressions—a distinction both of the noun from the participle, and of the different senses which he supposed these two constructions to exhibit. In all this, there is a complete failure. Yet with what remarkable ductility and implicitness do other professed critics take for granted what this superficial philologer so hastily prescribes! By acknowledging with reference to such an application of them, that the two constructions above are both good English, our grammarians do but the more puzzle their disciples respecting the choice between them; just as Priestley himself was puzzled, when he said, "So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned, a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Gram., p. 70. Murray and others omit this "perhaps," and while they allow both forms to be good, decidedly prefer the latter; but neither Priestley, nor any of the rest, ever pretended to discern in these a difference of signification, or even of parts of speech. For my part, in stead of approving either of these readings about the "great exploit," I have rejected both, for reasons which have already been given; and now as to the first two forms of the horserace question, so far as they may strictly be taken for models, I cannot but condemn them also, and for the same reasons: to which reasons may be joined the additional one, that neither expression is well adapted to the sense which the author himself gives to it in his interpretation. If the Doctor designed to ask, "Do you think my horse ran well to-day?" or, "Do you think it proper for my horse to run to-day?" he ought to have used one or the other of these unequivocal and unobjectionable expressions. There is in fact between the others, no such difference of meaning as he imagines; nor does he well distinguish "the NOUN running" from the PARTICIPLE runnning; because he apparently allows the word, in both instances, to be qualified by the adverb to-day.[422]

OBS. 38.—It is clear, that the participle in ing partakes sometimes the nature of its verb and an adjective; so that it relates to a noun, like an adjective, and yet implies time, and, if transitive, governs an object, like a verb: as, "Horses running a race." Hence, by dropping what here distinguishes it as a participle, the word may become an adjective, and stand before its noun; as, "A running brook." So, too, this participle sometimes partakes the nature of its verb and a noun; so that it may be governed by a preposition, like a noun, though in itself it has no cases or numbers, but is indeclinable: as "In running a race." Hence, again, by dropping what distinguishes it as a participle, it may become a noun; as, "Running is a safer sport than wrestling." Now, if to a participle we prefix something which makes it an adjective, we also take away its regimen, by inserting a preposition; as, "A doctrine _un_deserving of praise,"—"A man _un_compromising in his principles." So, if we put before it an article, an adjective, or a possessive, and thus give to the participle a substantive character or relation, there is reason to think, that we ought, in like manner, to take away its regimen, and its adverb too, if it have any, and be careful also to distinguish this noun from the participial adjective; as, "The running of a race,"—"No racing of horses,"—"Your deserving of praise."—"A man's compromising of his principles." With respect to the articles, or any adjectives, it seems now to be generally conceded, that these are signs of substantives; and that, if added to participles, they must cause them to be taken, in all respects, substantively. But with respect to possessives before participles, the common practice of our writers very extensively indulges the mixed construction of which I have said so much, and concerning the propriety of which, the opinions of our grammarians are so various, so confused, and so self-contradictory.

OBS. 39.—Though the participle with a nominative or an objective before it, is not in general, equivalent to the verbal noun or the mixed participle with a possessive before it; and though the significations of the two phrases are often so widely different as to make it palpably absurd to put either for the other; yet the instances are not few in which it makes little or no difference to the sense, which of the two forms we prefer, and therefore, in these instances, I would certainly choose the more simple and regular construction; or, where a better than either can readily be found, reject both. It is also proper to have some regard to the structure of other languages, and to the analogy of General Grammar. If there be "some late writers" who are chargeable with "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," there are perhaps more who as idly affect what they suppose "consonant with the genius of our language." I allude to those who would prefer the possessive case in a text like the following: "Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?"'—1 Kings, i, 41. "Quid sibi vult clamor civitatis tumultuantis?"—Vulgate. "[Greek: Gis hæ phonæ tæs poleos æchousæs];"—Septuagint. Literally: "What [means] the clamour of the city resounding?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui est ainsi émue?"—French Bible. Literally: "What means this noise of the city which is so moved?" Better English: "What means this noise with which the city rings?" In the following example, there is a seeming imitation of the foregoing Latin or Greek construction; but it may well be doubted whether it would be any improvement to put the word "disciples" in the possessive case; nor is it easy to find a third form which would be better than these: "Their difficulties will not be increased by the intended disciples having ever resided in a Christian country."—West's Letters, p. 119.

OBS. 40.—It may be observed of these different relations between participles and other words, that nouns are much more apt to be put in the nominative or the objective case, than are pronouns. For example: "There is no more of moral principle in the way of abolitionists nominating their own candidates, than in that of their voting for those nominated by others."—GERRIT SMITH: Liberator, Vol. X, p. 17. Indeed, a pronoun of the nominative or the objective case is hardly ever used in such a relation, unless it be so obviously the leading word in sense, as to preclude all question about the construction.[423] And this fact seems to make it the more doubtful, whether it be proper to use nouns in that manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered the leading word in sense, we are at least under no necessity of subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought desirable to vary the foregoing example, it may easily be done, thus: "There is no more of moral principle to prevent abolitionists from nominating their own candidates, than to prevent them from voting for those nominated by others." The following example is much like the preceding, but less justifiable: "We see comfort, security, strength, pleasure, wealth, and prosperity, all flowing from men combining together; and misery, weakness, and poverty, ensuing from their acting separately or in opposition to each other."—West's Letters, p. 133. Say rather,—"from men's combining-together," or, "from the just combination of men in society;" and,—"from their separate action, or their opposition to one an other." Take an other example: "If illorum be governed here of negotii, it must be in this order, gratia negotii illorum videndi; and this is, for the sake of their business being seen, and not, for the sake of them being seen."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 352. Here the learned critic, in disputing Perizonius's resolution of the phrase, "illorum videndi gratiâ" has written disputable English. But, had he affected the Latin idiom, a nearer imitation of it would have been,—"for the sake of their business's being seen, and not for the sake of their being seen." Or nearer still,—"for the sake of seeing of their business, and not, for the sake of seeing of them." An elegant writer would be apt to avoid all these forms, and say,—"for the sake of seeing their business;" and,—"for the sake of seeing them;" though the former phrase, being but a version of bad Latin, makes no very good sense in any way.

OBS. 41.—Idioms, or peculiarities of expression, are never to be approved or valued, but according to their convenience, utility, or elegance. By this rule, some phrases that are not positively barbarous, may yet be ungrammatical, and a construction that is sometimes allowable, may yet be quite unworthy to be made or reckoned, "the common mode of expression." Thus, in Latin, the infinitive verb is occasionally put for a noun, and taken to signify a property possessed; as, "Tuum scire, [thy to know,] the same as tua scientia, thy knowledge. Pers."—Adam's Gram., p. 153. So, in English, the participle in ing is often taken substantively, when it does not actually become a substantive or noun; as, "Thy knowing this,"—"Our doing so."—West. Such forms of speech, because they are idiomatical, seldom admit of any literal translation, and are never naturalized by any transfer from one language or dialect into an other; nor is it proper for grammarians to justify them, in vernacular speech, except as figures or anomalies that ought not to be generally imitated. It cannot be truly affirmed, that the genius of our language ever requires that participles, as such, should assume the relations of a noun, or govern the possessive case; nor, on the other hand, can it be truly denied, that very excellent and learned writers do sometimes make use of such phraseology. Without disrespect to the many users and approvers of these anomalies, I set down for bad English every mixed construction of the participle, for which the language can furnish an equivalent expression that is more simple and more elegant. The extent to which these comparative barbarisms now abound in English books, and the ridiculous fondness for them, which has been shown by some writers on English grammar, in stead of amounting to any argument in their favour, are in fact, plain proofs of the necessity of an endeavour to arrest so obvious and so pernicious an innovation.

OBS. 42.—A late author observes as follows: "That the English gerund, participle, or verbal noun, in ing, has both an active and a passive signification, there can be little doubt.[424] Whether the Latin gerund has precisely a similar import, or whether it is only active, it may be difficult, and, indeed, after all, it is not of much moment, to ascertain."—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 234. The gerund in Latin most commonly governs the case of its own verb, as does the active participle, both in Latin and English: as, "Efferor studio patres vestros videndi. Cic. de sen. 23."—Lily's Gram., p. 96. That is, "I am transported, with a desire of seeing your fathers." But sometimes we find the gerund taken substantively and made to govern the genitive. Or,—to adopt the language of an old grammarian:—"Interdum non invenustè additur gerundiis in di etiam genitivus pluralis: ut, 'Quum illorum videndi gratiâ me in forum contulissem.'—'Novarum [qui] spectandi faciunt copiam.' Ter. Heaut. prol. 29."—Lily's Gram., p. 97. That is, "To gerunds in di there is sometimes not inelegantly added a genitive plural: as, 'When, for the sake of seeing of them, I went into the forum.'—'Who present an opportunity of attending of new ones:' i.e., new comedies." Here the of which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers do now and then adopt this idiom. The gerund thus governing the genitive, is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for the subject of the being or action, but for what would otherwise be the object of the gerund, or of the participle, as may be seen above. The objection to the participle as governing the possessive, is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed. R. Johnson, like many others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective, and has merely a preposition before it; as, "For the sake of seeing them. Where seeing (says he) is a Substantive."—Gram. Com., p. 353.

OBS. 43.—If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the agent, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective. But I have before observed that no such analogy appears. The following example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the genitive of the agent: "Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est—Cic."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 236. That is, (as I understand it,) "But in whose speaking something is reprehended." This seems to me a case in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so. But a single example is not sufficient. If the doctrine is true, there must be others. In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that cujus is here governed by aliquid, and not by the gerund. "Here," says Grant, "I am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the liberty to use, 'That, for the sake of euphony, the gerund is sometimes found governing the genitive of the patient, or subject [say object] of the action, is unquestionable: thus, studio videndi patrum vestrorum. [That is, literally, By a desire of seeing of your fathers.] But I recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the patient, but the agent; as, dicendum meum, ejus dicendum, cujus dicendum. [That is, my speaking, his speaking, whose speaking.] In truth, these phraseologies appear to me, not only repugnant to the idiom of the language, but also unfavourable to precision and perspicuity.'"—Grant's Latin Gram., 8vo, p. 236.

OBS. 44.—Of that particular distinction between the participle and the participial noun, which depends on the insertion or omission of the article and the preposition of, a recent grammarian of considerable merit adopts the following views: "This double nature of the participle has led to much irregularity in its use. Thus we find, 'indulging which,' 'indulging of which,' 'the indulging which,' and 'the indulging of which,' used indiscriminately. Lowth very properly instructs us, either to use both the article and the preposition with the participle; as, 'the indulging of which:' or to reject both; as, 'indulging which:' thus keeping the verbal and substantive forms distinct. But he is wrong, as Dr. Crombie justly remarks, in considering these two modes of expression as perfectly similar. Suppose I am told, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in hearing Fawcet:' I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Bloomfield great pleasure. But were it said, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in the hearing of Fawcet:' I should be led to conclude merely that the orator was within hearing, when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt from something, about which I have no information. Accordingly Dr. Crombie suggests as a general rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing something, the article should be inserted before the participle, and the preposition after it; and, when the noun is passive, or represents the object of an action, both the article and the preposition should be omitted:[425] agreeably to the examples just adduced. It is true, that when the noun following the participle denotes something incapable of the action the participle expresses, no mistake can arise from using either form: as, 'The middle condition seems to be the most advantageously situate for the gaining of wisdom. Poverty turns our thoughts too much upon the supplying of our wants; and riches, upon enjoying our superfluities.' Addison, Spect., 464. Yet I cannot think it by any means a commendable practice, thus to jumble together different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as the two modes of expression have different significations, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr. Crombie's rule, even when no mistake could arise from interchanging them."—Churchill's Gram., p. 319.

OBS. 45.—The two modes of expression which these grammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, are the same that Lindley Murray and his copyists suppose to be generally equivalent, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do "not in every instance convey the same meaning." (See Obs. 27th above.) If Dr. Lowth considered them "as perfectly similar," he was undoubtedly very wrong in this matter: though not more so than these gentlemen, who resolve to interpret them as being perfectly and constantly dissimilar. Dr. Adam says, "There are, both in Latin and [in] English, substantives derived from the verb, which so much resemble the Gerund in their signification, that frequently they may be substituted in its place. They are generally used, however, in a more undetermined sense than the Gerund, and in English, have the article always[426] prefixed to them. Thus, with the gerund, Detector legendo Ciceronem, I am delighted with reading Cicero. But with the substantive, Delector lectione Ciceronis, I am delighted with the reading of Cicero."—Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 142. "Gerunds are so called because they, as it were, signify the thing in gerendo, (anciently written gerundo,) in doing; and, along with the action, convey an idea of the agent."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 70; Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 353. "The reading of Cicero," does not necessarily signify an action of which Cicero is the agent, as Crombie, Churchill, and Hiley choose to expound it; and, since the gerundive construction of words in ing ought to have a definite reference to the agent or subject of the action or being, one may perhaps amend even some of their own phraseology above, by preferring the participial noun: as, "No mistake can arise from the using of either form."—"And riches [turn our thoughts too much] upon the enjoying of our superfluities."—"Even when no mistake could arise from the interchanging of them." Where the agent of the action plainly appears, the gerundive form is to be preferred on account of its brevity; as, "By the observing of truth, you will command respect;" or, "By observing truth, &c."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 189. Here the latter phraseology is greatly preferable, though this author did not perceive it. "I thought nothing was to be done by me before the giving of you thanks."—Walker's Particles, p. 63. Say,—"before giving you thanks;" for otherwise the word thanks has no proper construction, the pronoun alone being governed by of—and here again is an error; for "you" ought to be the object of to.

OBS. 46.—In Hiley's Treatise, a work far more comprehensive than the generality of grammars, "the established principles and best usages of the English" Participle are so adroitly summed up, as to occupy only two pages, one in Etymology, and an other in Syntax. The author shows how the participle differs from a verb, and how from an adjective; yet he neither makes it a separate part of speech, nor tells us with what other it ought to be included. In lieu of a general rule for the parsing of all participles, he presents the remark, "Active transitive participles, like their verbs, govern the objective case; as, 'I am desirous of hearing him;' 'Having praised them, he sat down.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 93. This is a rule by which one may parse the few objectives which are governed by participles; but, for the usual construction of participles themselves, it is no rule at all; neither does the grammar, full as it is, contain any. "Hearing" is here governed by of, and "Having praised" relates to he; but this author teaches neither of these facts, and the former he expressly contradicts by his false definition of a preposition. In his first note, is exhibited, in two parts, the false and ill-written rule which Churchill quotes from Crombie. (1.) "When the noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing something, the participle must have an article before it, and the preposition of after it; as, 'In the hearing of the philosopher;' or, 'In the philosopher's hearing;' 'By the preaching of Christ;' or, 'By Christ's preaching.' In these instances," says Hiley, "the words hearing and preaching are substantives." If so, he ought to have corrected this rule, which twice calls them participles; but, in stead of doing that, he blindly adds, by way of alternative, two examples which expressly contradict what the rule asserts. (2.) "But when the noun represents the object of an action, the article and the preposition of must be omitted; as, 'In hearing the philosopher.'"—Ib., p. 94. If this principle is right, my second note below, and most of the corrections under it, are wrong. But I am persuaded that the adopters of this rule did not observe how common is the phraseology which it condemns; as, "For if the casting-away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"—Rom., xi, 15. Finally, this author rejects the of which most critics insert when a possessive precedes the verbal noun; justifies and prefers the mixed or double construction of the participle; and, consequently, neither wishes nor attempts to distinguish the participle from the verbal noun. Yet he does not fail to repeat, with some additional inaccuracy, the notion, that, "What do you think of my horse's running? is different to [say from,] What do you think of my horse running?"—Ib., p. 94.

OBS. 47.—That English books in general, and the style of even our best writers, should seldom be found exempt from errors in the construction of participles, will not be thought wonderful, when we consider the multiplicity of uses to which words of this sort are put, and the strange inconsistencies into which all our grammarians have fallen in treating this part of syntax. It is useless, and worse than useless, to teach for grammar any thing that is not true; and no doctrine can be true of which one part palpably oversets an other. What has been taught on the present topic, has led me into a multitude of critical remarks, designed both for the refutation of the principles which I reject, and for the elucidation and defence of those which are presently to be summed up in notes, or special rules, for the correction of false syntax. If my decisions do not agree with the teaching of our common grammarians, it is chiefly because these authors contradict themselves. Of this sort of teaching I shall here offer but one example more, and then bring these strictures to a close: "When present participles are preceded by an article, or pronoun adjective, they become nouns, and must not be followed by objective pronouns, or nouns without a preposition; as, the reading of many books wastes the health. But such nouns, like all others, may be used without an article, being sufficiently discovered by the following preposition; as, he was sent to prepare the way, by preaching of repentance. Also an article, or pronoun adjective, may precede a clause, used as a noun, and commencing with a participle; as, his teaching children was necessary."—Dr. Wilson's Syllabus of English Gram., p. xxx. Here the last position of the learned doctor, if it be true, completely annuls the first; or, if the first be true, the last must needs be false, And, according to Lowth, L. Murray, and many others, the second is as bad as either. The bishop says, concerning this very example, that by the use of the preposition of after the participle preaching, "the phrase is rendered obscure and ambiguous: for the obvious meaning of it, in its present form, is, 'by preaching concerning repentance, or on that subject;' whereas the sense intended is, 'by publishing the covenant of repentance, and declaring repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God.'"—Lowth's Gram., p. 82. "It ought to be, 'by the preaching of repentance;' or, by preaching repentance."—Murray's Gram., p. 193.