OBS. 10.—After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or pronoun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be parsed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction. Consequently I do not admit, that any passive verb can properly govern an objective noun or pronoun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, "Give him bread to eat."—"Bread shall be given him"—Bible. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a "preposition understood;" and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, "Give [to] truth and virtue the same arms which you give [to] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail."—Blair's Rhet., p. 235. The questionable expression, "Ask me blessing," if interpreted analogically, must mean, "Ask for me a blessing," which is more correct and explicit; or, if me be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, "Ask of me a blessing," or, "Ask my blessing." So, "Ask your master leave," ought rather to be, "Ask of your master leave," "Ask your master for leave," or, "Ask your master's leave." The example from Mark ought to be, "They asked him about the parable." Again, the elliptical sentence, "Teach them thy sons," is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, "Teach them to thy sons." To teach is to tell things to persons, or to instruct persons in things; to ask is to request or demand things of or from persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons about or for things. These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more analogical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects.
OBS. 11.—Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you to this or of this, 'Persuadeo hoc tibi. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, Hoc tibi persuadetur, 'You are persuaded of this;' not, Tu persuaderis. 'He trusted me with this affair,' or 'He believed me in this,' Hoc mihi credidit.—Passively, Hoc mihi creditum est. 'I told you this,' Hoc tibi dixi. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' Hoc tibi dictum est; not, Tu dictus es." [No, surely: for, 'Tu dictus es,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'—and, if followed by any case, it must be the nominative.'] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, Hoc tibi dictum est, means not only 'This was told to you,' but 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS.' Liber mihi apatre promissus est, means both 'A book was promised (to) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' Is primum rogatua est sententiam, 'He was first asked for his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked of him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice." See Grants Latin Gram., p. 210.
OBS. 12.—Murray's second censure upon passive government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated. 'The bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the house of lords.' 'Thrasea was forbidden the presence of the emperor.' 'He was shown that very story in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: 'The bishops and abbots were allowed to have (or to take) their seats in the house of lords;' or, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed to the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden to approach the presence of the emperor;' or, 'The presence of the emperor was forbidden to Thrasea:' 'That very story was shown to him in one of his own books.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that—Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice."—Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised me a reward. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., pp. 110 and 112.
OBS. 13.—The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs—probably a vast majority—govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He paid my board; I told you so." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, to name, to mention. What is there that cannot be named or mentioned? Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, to transgress a law, or rule. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or something equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, "He lived a virtuous life."—"Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed"—Gen., xxxvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."—Isaiah, v, 6.
OBS. 14.—Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."—See Guy's Gram., p. 21; Murray's, 180; Ingersoll's, 183; Fisk's, 123; Smith's, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in any sense, or under any construction, that will not, in every sense, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it."—Wright's Gram., p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, "An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective."—Gram., p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as conceive, think, believe, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, "I conceived it (of it) in that light."—Guy's Gram., p. 21. "Did you conceive (of) him to be me?"—Ib., p. 28. With this idea, few will probably concur.
OBS. 15.—We sometimes find the pronoun me needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, "It ascends me into the brain; dries me there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours."—Shakspeare's Falstaff. "Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster me all to their captain, the heart."—Id. This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person; "Fare you well, Falstaff."—Shak. Here you was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb fare. "Fare thee well."—W. Scott. "Farewell to thee."—Id. These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, "Fare thou well." Again: "Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour."—2 Sam., ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy thee for thou. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs. It ought to be thus: "Turn thou aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay hold on one of the young men, and take to thyself his armour." So of the third person: "The king soon found reason to repent him of his provoking such dangerous enemies."—HUME: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 180. Here both of the pronouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.
"Good Margaret, run thee into the parlour;
There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice."—SHAK.: Much Ado.
NOTES TO RULE V.
NOTE I.—Those verbs or participles which require a regimen, or which signify action that must terminate transitively, should not be used without an object; as, "She affects [kindness,] in order to ingratiate [herself] with you."—"I must caution [you], at the same time, against a servile imitation of any author whatever."—Blair's Rhet., p. 192.
NOTE II.—Those verbs and participles which do not admit an object, or which express action that terminates in themselves, or with the doer, should not be used transitively; as, "The planters grow cotton." Say raise, produce, or cultivate. "Dare you speak lightly of the law, or move that, in a criminal trial, judges should advance one step beyond what it permits them to go?"—Blair's Rhet., p. 278. Say,—"beyond the point to which it permits them to go."