OBS. 9.—From Dr. Campbell's commendation of Lowth, as having "given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,"—that is, between the participial noun and the participle,—it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: "Much will depend on your pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently."—Philos. of Rhet., p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be "correct and proper." But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb "frequently" qualify the verb "will depend" expressed in the sentence? or "will depend" understood after more? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of "reading?" or the action of "composing?" or both? or neither? But composing and reading, if they are mere nouns, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives. Besides, composing, as a participle, is commonly transitive; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon of, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, "Much will depend on your pupil's composing of themes; but more, on his frequent reading." This may not be the author's meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of "experiment;" and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher. But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, "Much will depend on an author's using, but more on his learning frequently." Yet is it commended as a model, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.
OBS. 10.—That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form "one name" or "substantive phrase," and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author. For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar it stands thus: "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case. Thus, instead of saying, What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train, i. e. what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train, we may say, What is the meaning of this lady's holding up her train; just as we say, What is the meaning of this lady's dress, &c. So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Priestley's Gram., p. 69. Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly. Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction. His only note on this point,—a note about the "horse running to-day," and the "horse's running to-day,"—I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.
OBS. 11.—Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite from L. Murray's code a paragraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun. "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, 'What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily?' that is, 'What is the reason of this person, in dismissing his servant so hastily?' we may say, and perhaps ought to say, 'What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so hastily?' Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant?' So also, we say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or more properly, 'I remember its being reckoned,' &c. The following sentence is correct and proper: 'Much will depend on the pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently.' It would not be accurate to say, 'Much will depend on the pupil composing.' &c. We also properly say; 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently;' instead of, 'Of the pupil composing frequently.' The participle, in such constructions, does the office of a substantive; and it should therefore have a CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN."—Murray's Gram., Rule 10th, Note 7; Ingersoll's, p. 180; Fisk's, 108; R. C. Smith's, 152; Alger's, 61; Merchant's, 84. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 150; "Abridged Ed.," 117.[348]
OBS. 12.—Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or (what amounts to the same thing) a phrase beginning with a participle, ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and others, is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it among the most puzzling points of grammar. Let it be observed, that what these writers absurdly call "an entire CLAUSE of a sentence," is found on examination to be some short PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, "holding up her train,"—"dismissing his servant so hastily,"—"composing,"—"reading frequently,"—"composing frequently." And each of these, with an opposite error as great, they will have to be "one name," and to convey but "one idea;" supposing that by virtue of this imaginary oneness, it may govern the possessive case, and signify something which a "lady," or a "person," or a "pupil," may consistently possess. And then, to be wrong in every thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its adjuncts, "depends, may be put in the genitive case;" whereas, such a change is seldom, if ever, admissible, and in our language, no participle ever can depend on any other than the nominative or the objective case. Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the word which governs it. In respect to construction, no terms differ more than a participle which governs the possessive case, and a participle which does not. These different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to be equivalent in meaning; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in them quite different significations. The meaning is sometimes very different, and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible. And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Grammar? In Greek and Latin, a participle may agree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if we regard analogy, that genitive must be Englished, not by the possessive case, but by of and the objective; as, "[Greek: 'Epeì dokim`æn zæteîte toû 'en 'emoì laloûntos Christoû.]"—"Quandoquidem experimentum quæritis in me loquentis Christi."—Beza. "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me."—2 Cor., xiii, 3. We might here, perhaps, say, "of Christ's speaking in me," but is not the other form better? The French version is, "Puisque vous cherchez une preuve que Christ parle par moi;" and this, too, might be imitated in English: "Since ye seek a proof that Christ speaks by me."
OBS. 13.—As prepositions very naturally govern any of our participles except the simple perfect, it undoubtedly seems agreeable to our idiom not to disturb this government, when we would express the subject or agent of the being, action, or passion, between the preposition and the participle. Hence we find that the doer or the sufferer of the action is usually made its possessor, whenever the sense does not positively demand a different reading. Against this construction there is seldom any objection, if the participle be taken entirely as a noun, so that it may be called a participial noun; as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule."—Lowth, Campbell, and L. Murray. On the other hand, the participle after the objective is unobjectionable, if the noun or pronoun be the leading word in sense; as, "It would be idle to profess an apprehension of serious evil resulting in any respect from the utmost publicity being given to its contents."—London Eclectic Review, 1816. "The following is a beautiful instance of the sound of words corresponding to motion."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 333. "We shall discover many things partaking of both those characters."—West's Letters, p. 182. "To a person following the vulgar mode of omitting the comma."—Churchill's Gram., p. 365. But, in comparing the different constructions above noticed, writers are frequently puzzled to determine, and frequently too do they err in determining, which word shall be made the adjunct, and which the leading term. Now, wherever there is much doubt which of the two forms ought to be preferred, I think we may well conclude that both are wrong; especially, if there can easily be found for the idea an other expression that is undoubtedly clear and correct. Examples: "These appear to be instances of the present participle being used passively."—Murray's Gram., p. 64. "These are examples of the past participle being applied in an active sense."—Ib., 64. "We have some examples of adverbs being used for substantives."—Priestley's Gram., p. 134; Murray's, 198; Ingersoll's, 206; Fisk's, 140; Smith's, 165. "By a noun, pronoun, or adjective, being prefixed to the substantive."—Murray's Gram., p. 39; also Ingersoll's, Fisk's, Alger's, Maltby's, Merchant's, Bacon's, and others. Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word being, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes. Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, "Much depends on the rule being observed."—"Much will depend on the pupil composing frequently." Again: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians coming to attack him."—Rollin, ii, 86. "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians' coming to attack him." That is—"for their coming," and not, "for them coming;" but much better than either: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians to come and attack him." Again: "To prevent his army's being enclosed and hemmed in."—Rollin, ii, 89. "To prevent his army being enclosed and hemmed in." Both are wrong. Say, "To prevent his army from being enclosed and hemmed in." Again: "As a sign of God's fulfilling the promise."—Rollin, ii, 23. "As a sign of God fulfilling the promise." Both are objectionable. Say, "As a sign that God would fulfill the promise." Again: "There is affirmative evidence for Moses's being the author of these books."—Bp. Watson's Apology, p. 28. "The first argument you produce against Moses being the author of these books."—Ib., p. 29. Both are bad. Say,—"for Moses as being the author,"—"against Moses as being the author," &c.
OBS. 14.—Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is actually governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are, of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be better expressed in some other way. There are surely none among all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above. Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule. They are all of them unreal or feigned sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the same way, made up badly—made up after some ungrammatical model. If a gentleman could possibly demand a lady's meaning in such an act as the holding-up of her train, he certainly would use none of Priestley's three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, §481; but would probably say, "Madam, what do you mean by holding up your train?" It was folly for the doctor to ask an other person, as if an other could guess her meaning better than he. The text with the possessive is therefore not to be corrected by inserting a hyphen and an of, after Murray's doctrine before cited; as, "What is the meaning of this lady's holding-up of her train?" Murray did well to reject this example, but as a specimen of English, his own is no better. The question which he asks, ought to have been, "Why did this person dismiss his servant so hastily?" Fisk has it in the following form: "What is the reason of this person's dismissing his servant so hastily?"—English Grammar Simplified, p. 108. This amender of grammars omits the of which Murray and others scrupulously insert to govern the noun servant, and boldly avows at once, what their rule implies, that, "Participles are sometimes used both as verbs and as nouns at the same time; as, 'By the mind's changing the object,' &c."—Ib., p. 134; so Emmons's Gram., p. 64. But he errs as much as they, and contradicts both himself and them. For one ought rather to say, "By the mind's changing of the object;" else changing, which "does the office of a noun," has not truly "a correspondent regimen." Yet of is useless after dismissing, unless we take away the adverb by which the participle is prevented from becoming a noun. "Dismissing of his servant so hastily," is in itself an ungrammatical phrase; and nothing but to omit either the preposition, or the two adverbs, can possibly make it right. Without the latter, it may follow the possessive; but without the former, our most approved grammars say it cannot. Some critics, however, object to the of, because the dismissing is not the servant's act; but this, as I shall hereafter show, is no valid objection: they stickle for a false rule.
OBS. 15.—Thus these authors, differing from one an other as they do, and each contradicting himself and some of the rest, are, as it would seem, all wrong in respect to the whole matter at issue. For whether the phrase in question be like Priestley's, or like Murray's, or like Fisk's, it is still, according to the best authorities, unfit to govern the possessive case; because, in stead of being a substantive, it is something more than a participle, and yet they take it substantively. They form this phrase in many different fashions, and yet each man of them pretends that what he approves, is just like the construction of a regular noun: "Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant.'"—Murray, Fisk, and others. "Just as we say, 'What is the meaning of this lady's dress,' &c."—Priestley. The meaning of a lady's dress, forsooth! The illustration is worthy of the doctrine taught. "An entire clause of a sentence" substantively possessed, is sufficiently like "the meaning of a lady's dress, &c." Cobbett despised andsoforths, for their lack of meaning; and I find none in this one, unless it be, "of tinsel and of fustian." This gloss therefore I wholly disapprove, judging the position more tenable, to deny, if we consequently must, that either a phrase or a participle, as such, can consistently govern the possessive case. For whatever word or term gives rise to the direct relation of property, and is rightly made to govern the possessive case, ought in reason to be a noun—ought to be the name of some substance, quality, state, action, passion, being, or thing. When therefore other parts of speech assume this relation, they naturally become nouns; as, "Against the day of my burying."—John, xii, 7. "Till the day of his showing unto Israel."—Luke, i, 80. "By my own showing."—Cowper, Life, p. 22. "By a fortune of my own getting."—Ib. "Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay."—James, v, 12. "Prate of my whereabout."—Shah.
OBS. 16.—The government of possessives by "entire clauses" or "substantive phrases," as they are sometimes called, I am persuaded, may best be disposed of, in almost every instance, by charging the construction with impropriety or awkwardness, and substituting for it some better phraseology. For example, our grammars abound with sentences like the following, and call them good English: (1.) "So we may either say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or perhaps more elegantly, 'I remember its being reckoned a great exploit.'"—Priestley, Murray, and others. Here both modes are wrong; the latter, especially; because it violates a general rule of syntax, in regard to the case of the noun exploit. Say, "I remember it was reckoned a great exploit." Again: (2.) "We also properly say, 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 179; and others. Better, "This will be the effect, if the pupil compose frequently." But this sentence is fictitious, and one may doubt whether good authors can be found who use compose or composing as being intransitive. (3.) "What can be the reason of the committee's having delayed this business?"—Murray's Key, p. 223. Say, "Why have the committee delayed this business?" (4.) "What can be the cause of the parliament's neglecting so important a business?"—Ib., p. 195. Say, "Why does the parliament neglect so important a business?" (5.) "The time of William's making the experiment, at length arrived."—Ib., p. 195. Say, "The time for William to make the experiment, at length arrived." (6.) "I hope this is the last time of my acting so imprudently."—Ib., p. 263. Say, "I hope I shall never again act so imprudently." (7.) "If I were to give a reason for their looking so well, it would be, that they rise early."—Ib., p. 263. Say, "I should attribute their healthful appearance to their early rising." (8.) "The tutor said, that diligence and application to study were necessary to our becoming good scholars."—Cooper's Gram., p. 145. Here is an anomaly in the construction of the noun scholars. Say, "The tutor said, that diligent application to study was necessary to our success in learning." (9.) "The reason of his having acted in the manner he did, was not fully explained."—Murray's Key, p. 263. This author has a very singular mode of giving "STRENGTH" to weak sentences. The faulty text here was. "The reason why he acted in the manner he did, was not fully explained."—Murray's Exercises, p. 131. This is much better than the other, but I should choose to say. "The reason of his conduct was not fully explained." For, surely, the "one idea or circumstance" of his "having acted in the manner in which he did act," may be quite as forcibly named by the one word conduct, as by all this verbiage, this "substantive phrase," or "entire clause," of such cumbrous length.
OBS. 17.—The foregoing observations tend to show, that the government of possessives by participles, is in general a construction little to be commended, if at all allowed. I thus narrow down the application of the principle, but do not hereby determine it to be altogether wrong. There are other arguments, both for and against the doctrine, which must be taken into the account, before we can fully decide the question. The double construction which may be given to infinitive verbs; the Greek idiom which allows to such verbs an article before them and an objective after them; the mixed character of the Latin gerund, part noun, part verb; the use or substitution of the participle in English for the gerund in Latin;—all these afford so many reasons by analogy, for allowing that our participle—except it be the perfect—since it participates the properties of a verb and a noun, as well as those of a verb and an adjective, may unite in itself a double construction, and be taken substantively in one relation, and participially in an other. Accordingly some grammarians so define it; and many writers so use it; both parties disregarding the distinction between the participle and the participial noun, and justifying the construction of the former, not only as a proper participle after its noun, and as a gerundive after its preposition; not only as a participial adjective before its noun, and as a participial noun, in the regular syntax of a noun; but also as a mixed term, in the double character of noun and participle at once. Nor are these its only uses; for, after an auxiliary, it is the main verb; and in a few instances, it passes into a preposition, an adverb, or something else. Thus have we from the verb a single derivative, which fairly ranks with about half the different parts of speech, and takes distinct constructions even more numerous; and yet these authors scruple not to make of it a hybridous thing, neither participle nor noun, but constructively both. "But this," says Lowth, "is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction."—Gram., p. 82. And so say I—as asserting the general principle, and leaving the reader to judge of its exceptions. Because, without this mongrel character, the participle in our language has a multiplicity of uses unparalleled in any other; and because it seldom happens that the idea intended by this double construction may not be otherwise expressed more elegantly. But if it sometimes seem proper that the gerundive participle should be allowed to govern the possessive case, no exception to my rule is needed for the parsing of such possessive; because whatever is invested with such government, whether rightly or wrongly, is assumed as "the name of something possessed."
OBS. 18.—The reader may have observed, that in the use of participial nouns, the distinction of voice in the participle is sometimes disregarded. Thus, "Against the day of my burying," means, "Against the day of my being buried." But in this instance the usual noun burial or funeral would have been better than either: "Against the day of my burial." I. e., "In diem funerationis meæ."—Beza. "In diem sepulturæ meæ."—Leusden. "[Greek: 'Eis t`æn hæméran toû entaphiasmoû mou.]"—John, xii, 7. In an other text, this noun is very properly used for the Greek infinitive, and the Latin gerund; as, "For my burial."—Matt., xxvi, 12. "Ad funerandum me."—Beza. "Ad sepeliendum me."—Leusden. Literally: "For burying me." "[Greek: Pròs tò entaphiásai me.]" Nearly: "For to have me buried." Not all that is allowable, is commendable; and if either of the uncompounded terms be found a fit substitute for the compound participial noun, it is better to dispense with the latter, on account of its dissimilarity to other nouns: as, "Which only proceed upon the question's being begged."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 361. Better, "Which only proceed upon a begging of the question." "The king's having conquered in the battle, established his throne."—Nixon's Parser, p. 128. Better, "The king's conquering in the battle;" for, in the participial noun, the distinction of tense, or of previous completion, is as needless as that of voice. "The fleet's having sailed prevented mutiny."—Ib., p. 78. Better, "The sailing of the fleet,"—or, "The fleet's sailing" &c. "The prince's being murdered excited their pity."—Ibid. Better, "The prince's murder excited their indignation."