The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

UNDER NOTE II.—OF FALSE IDENTIFICATION.

"But to be popular, he observes, is an ambiguous word."—Blair's Rhet., p. 307. "The infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is often the nominative case to a verb."—L. Murray's Index, Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 290. "When any person, in speaking, introduces his own name, it is the first person; as, 'I, James, of the city of Boston.'"—R. C. Smith's New Gram., p. 43. "The name of the person spoken to, is the second person; as, 'James, come to me.'"—Ibid. "The name of the person or thing spoken of, or about, is the third person; as, 'James has come.'"—Ibid. "The object [of a passive verb] is always its subject or nominative case."—Ib., p. 62. "When a noun is in the nominative case to an active verb, it is the actor."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 44. "And the person commanded, is its nominative."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 120. "The first person is that who speaks."—Pasquier's Lévizac, p. 91. "The Conjugation of a Verb is its different variations or inflections throughout the Moods and Tenses."—Wright's Gram., p. 80. "The first person is the speaker. The second person is the one spoken to. The third person is the one spoken of."—Parker and Fox's Gram., Part i, p. 6; Hiley's, 18. "The first person is the one that speaks, or the speaker."—Sanborn's Gram., pp. 23 and 75. "The second person is the one that is spoken to, or addressed."—Ibid. "The third person is the one that is spoken of, or that is the topic of conversation."—Ibid. "I, is the first person Singular. We, is the first person Plural."—Murray's Gram., p. 51; Alger's, Ingersoll's, and many others. "Thou, is the second person Singular. Ye or you, is the second person Plural."—Ibid. "He, she, or it, is the third person Singular. They, is the third person Plural."—Ibid. "The nominative case is the actor, or subject of the verb."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 43. "The noun John is the actor, therefore John is in the nominative case."—Ibid. "The actor is always the nominative case."—Smith's New Gram., p. 62. "The nominative case is always the agent or actor."—Mack's Gram., p. 67. "Tell the part of speech each name is."—J. Flint's Gram., p. 6. "What number is boy? Why? What number is pens? Why?"—Ib., p. 27. "The speaker is the first person, the person spoken to, the second person, and the person or thing spoken of, is the third person."—Ib., p. 26. "What nouns are masculine gender? All males are masculine gender."—Ib., p. 28. "An interjection is a sudden emotion of the mind."—Barrett's Gram., p. 62.

RULE VII.—OBJECTIVES.

A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is governed by it in the objective case: as, "The temple of fame stands upon the grave: the flame that burns upon its altars, is kindled from the ashes of great men"—Hazlitt.

"Life is His gift, from whom whate'er life needs, With ev'ry good and perfect gift, proceeds."—Cowper, Vol. i, p. 95.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE VII.

OBS. 1.—To this rule there are no exceptions; for prepositions, in English, govern no other case than the objective.[364] But the learner should observe that most of our prepositions may take the imperfect participle for their object, and some, the pluperfect, or preperfect; as, "On opening the trial they accused him of having defrauded them."—"A quick wit, a nice judgment, &c., could not raise this man above being received only upon the foot of contributing to mirth and diversion."—Steele. And the preposition to is often followed by an infinitive verb; as, "When one sort of wind is said to whistle, and an other to roar; when a serpent is said to hiss, a fly to buzz, and falling timber to crash; when a stream is said to flow, and hail to rattle; the analogy between the word and the thing signified, is plainly discernible."—Blair's Rhet., p. 55. But let it not be supposed that participles or infinitives, when they are governed by prepositions, are therefore in the objective case; for case is no attribute of either of these classes of words: they are indeclinable in English, whatever be the relations they assume. They are governed as participles, or as infinitives, and not as cases. The mere fact of government is so far from creating the modification governed, that it necessarily presupposes it to exist, and that it is something cognizable in etymology.

OBS. 2.—The brief assertion, that, "Prepositions govern the objective case," which till very lately our grammarians have universally adopted as their sole rule for both terms, the governing and the governed,—the preposition and its object,—is, in respect to both, somewhat exceptionable, being but partially and lamely applicable to either. It neither explains the connecting nature of the preposition, nor applies to all objectives, nor embraces all the terms which a preposition may govern. It is true, that prepositions, when they introduce declinable words, or words that have cases, always govern the objective; but the rule is liable to be misunderstood, and is in fact often misapplied, as if it meant something more than this. Besides, in no other instance do grammarians attempt to parse both the governing word and the governed, by one and the same rule. I have therefore placed the objects of this government here, where they belong in the order of the parts of speech, expressing the rule in such terms as cannot be mistaken; and have also given, in its proper place, a distinct rule for the construction of the preposition itself. See Rule 23d.

OBS. 3.—Prepositions are sometimes elliptically construed with adjectives, the real object of the relation being thought to be some objective noun understood: as, in vain, in secret, at first, on high; i. e. in a vain manner, in secret places, at the first time, on high places. Such phrases usually imply time, place, degree, or manner, and are equivalent to adverbs. In parsing, the learner may supply the ellipsis.

OBS. 4.—In some phrases, a preposition seems to govern a perfect participle; but these expressions are perhaps rather to be explained as being elliptical: as, "To give it up for lost;"—"To take that for granted which is disputed."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 109. That is, perhaps, "To give it up for a thing lost;"—"To take that for a thing granted," &c. In the following passage the words ought and should are employed in such a manner that it is difficult to say to what part of speech they belong: "It is that very character of ought and should which makes justice a law to us; and the same character is applicable to propriety, though perhaps more faintly than to justice."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 286. The meaning seems to be, "It is that very character of being owed and required, that makes justice a law to us;" and this mode of expression, as it is more easy to be parsed, is perhaps more grammatical than his Lordship's. But, as preterits are sometimes put by enallage for participles, a reference of them to this figure may afford a mode of explanation in parsing, whenever they are introduced by a preposition, and not by a nominative: as, "A kind of conquest Cæsar made here; but made not here his brag Of, came, and saw, and overcame"—Shak., Cymb., iii, 1. That is,—"of having come, and seen, and overcome." Here, however, by assuming that a sentence is the object of the preposition, we may suppose the pronoun I to be understood, as ego is in the bulletin referred to, "Veni, vidi, vici." For, as a short sentence is sometimes made the subject of a verb, so is it sometimes made the object of a preposition; as,

"Earth's highest station ends in, 'here he lies;'
And 'dust to dust,' concludes her noblest song."—Young.

OBS. 5.—In some instances, prepositions precede adverbs; as, at once, at unawares, from thence, from above, till now, till very lately, for once, for ever. Here the adverb, though an indeclinable word, appears to be made the object of the preposition. It is in fact used substantively, and governed by the preposition. The term forever is often written as one word, and, as such, is obviously an adverb. The rest are what some writers would call adverbial phrases; a term not very consistent with itself, or with the true idea of parsing. If different parts of speech are to be taken together as having the nature of an adverb, they ought rather to coalesce and be united; for the verb to parse, being derived from the Latin pars, a part, implies in general a distinct recognition of the elements or words of every phrase or sentence.

OBS. 6.—Nouns of time, measure, distance, or value, have often so direct a relation to verbs or adjectives, that the prepositions which are supposed to govern them, are usually suppressed; as, "We rode sixty miles that day." That is,—"through sixty miles on that day." "The country is not a farthing richer."—Webster's Essays, p. 122. That is,—"richer by a farthing." "The error has been copied times without number."—Ib., p. 281. That is,—"on or at times innumerable." "A row of columns ten feet high, and a row twice that height, require different proportions." Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 344. That is,—"high to ten feet," and, "a row of twice that height." "Altus sex pedes, High on or at six feet."—Dr. Murray's Hist of Europ. Lang., ii, 150. All such nouns are in the objective case, and, in parsing them, the learner may supply the ellipsis;[365] or, perhaps it might be as well, to say, as do B. H. Smart and some others, that the noun is an objective of time, measure, or value, taken adverbially, and relating directly to the verb or adjective qualified by it. Such expressions as, "A board of six feet long,"—"A boy of twelve years old," are wrong. Either strike out the of, or say, "A board of six feet in length,"—"A boy of twelve years of age;" because this preposition is not suited to the adjective, nor is the adjective fit to qualify the time or measure.

OBS. 7.—After the adjectives like, near, and nigh, the preposition to or unto is often understood;[366] as, "It is like [to or unto] silver."—Allen. "How like the former."—Dryden. "Near yonder copse."—Goldsmith. "Nigh this recess."—Garth. As similarity and proximity are relations, and not qualities, it might seem proper to call like, near, and nigh, prepositions; and some grammarians have so classed the last two. Dr. Johnson seems to be inconsistent in calling near a preposition, in the phrase, "So near thy heart," and an adjective, in the phrase, "Being near their master." See his Quarto Dict. I have not placed them with the prepositions, for the following four reasons: (1.) Because they are sometimes compared; (2.) Because they sometimes have adverbs evidently relating to them; (3.) Because the preposition to or unto is sometimes expressed after them; and (4.) Because the words which usually stand for them in the learned languages, are clearly adjectives.[367] But like, when it expresses similarity of manner, and near and nigh, when they express proximity of degree, are adverbs.

OBS. 8.—The word worth is often followed by an objective, or a participle, which it appears to govern; as, "If your arguments produce no conviction, they are worth nothing to me."—Beattie. "To reign is worth ambition."—Milton. "This is life indeed, life worth preserving."—Addison. It is not easy to determine to what part of speech worth here belongs. Dr. Johnson calls it an adjective, but says nothing of the object after it, which some suppose to be governed by of understood. In this supposition, it is gratuitously assumed, that worth is equivalent to worthy, after which of should be expressed; as, "Whatsoever is worthy of their love, is worth their anger."—Denham. But as worth appears to have no certain characteristic of an adjective, some call it a noun, and suppose a double ellipsis; as, "'My knife is worth a shilling;' i. e. 'My knife is of the worth of a shilling.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 163. "'The book is worth that sum;' that is, 'The book is (the) worth (of) that sum;' 'It is worth while;' that is, 'It is (the) worth (of the) while.'"—Nixon's Parser, p. 54. This is still less satisfactory;[368] and as the whole appears to be mere guess-work, I see no good reason why worth is not a preposition, governing the noun or participle.[369] If an adverb precede worth, it may as well be referred to the foregoing verb, as when it occurs before any other preposition: as, "It is richly worth the money."—"It lies directly before your door." Or if we admit that an adverb sometimes relates to this word, the same thing may be as true of other prepositions; as, "And this is a lesson which, to the greatest part of mankind, is, I think, very well worth learning."—Blair's Rhet., p. 303. "He sees let down from the ceiling, exactly over his head, a glittering sword, hung by a single hair."—Murray's E. Reader, p. 33. See Exception 3d to Rule 21st.

OBS. 9.—Both Dr. Johnson and Horne Tooke, (who never agreed if they could help it,) unite in saying that worth, in the phrases, "Wo worth the man,"—"Wo worth the day," and the like, is from the imperative of the Saxon verb wyrthan or weorthan, to be; i. e., "Wo be [to] the man," or, "Wo betide the man," &c. And the latter affirms, that, as the preposition by is from the imperative of beon, to be, so with, (though admitted to be sometimes from withan, to join,) is often no other than this same imperative verb wyrth or worth: if so, the three words, by, with, and worth, were originally synonymous, and should now be referred at least to one and the same class. The dative case, or oblique object, which they governed as Saxon verbs, becomes their proper object, when taken as English prepositions; and in this also they appear to be alike. Worth, then, when it signifies value, is a common noun; but when it signifies equal in value to, it governs an objective, and has the usual characteristics of a preposition. Instances may perhaps be found in which worth is an adjective, meaning valuable or useful, as in the following lines:

"They glow'd, and grew more intimate with God,
More worth to men, more joyous to themselves."
—Young, N. ix, l. 988.

In one instance, the poet Campbell appears to have used the word worthless as a preposition:

"Eyes a mutual soul confessing,
Soon you'll make them grow
Dim, and worthless your possessing,
Not with age, but woe!"

OBS. 10.—After verbs of giving, paying, procuring, and some others, there is usually an ellipsis of to or for before the objective of the person; as, "Give [to] him water to drink."—"Buy [for] me a knife."—"Pay [to] them their wages." So in the exclamation, "Wo is me!" meaning, "Wo is to me!" This ellipsis occurs chiefly before the personal pronouns, and before such nouns as come between the verb and its direct object; as, "Whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth [to] God service."—John, xvi, 2. "Who brought [to] her masters much gain by soothsaying."—Acts, xvi, 16. "Because he gave not [to] God the glory."—Ib., xii, 23. "Give [to] me leave to allow [to] myself no respite from labour."—Spect., No. 454. "And the sons of Joseph, which were born [to] him in Egypt, were two souls."—Gen., xlvi, 27. This elliptical construction of a few objectives, is what remains to us of the ancient Saxon dative case. If the order of the words be changed, the preposition must be inserted; as, "Pray do my service to his majesty."—Shak. The doctrine inculcated by several of our grammarians, that, "Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives," (Wells, §215,) I have, under a preceding rule, discountenanced; preferring the supposition, which appears to have greater weight of authority, as well as stronger support from reason, that, in the instances cited in proof of such government, a preposition is, in fact, understood. Upon this question of ellipsis, depends, in all such instances, our manner of parsing one of the objective words.

OBS. 11.—In dates, as they are usually written, there is much abbreviation; and several nouns of place and time are set down in the objective case, without the prepositions which govern them: as, "New York, Wednesday, 20th October, 1830."—Journal of Literary Convention. That is, "At New York, on Wednesday, the 20th day of October, in the year 1830."

NOTE TO RULE VII.

An objective noun of time or measure, if it qualifies a subsequent adjective, must not also be made an adjunct to a preceding noun; as, "To an infant of only two or three years old."—Dr. Wayland. Expunge of, or for old write of age. The following is right: "The vast army of the Canaanites, nine hundred chariots strong, covered the level plain of Esdraelon."—Milman's Jews, Vol. i, p. 159. See Obs. 6th above.