"Ev'n mean self-love becomes, by force divine,
The scale to measure others' wants by thine."—Pope.
OBS. 15.—The common instructions of our English grammars, in relation to the subject of the preceding rule, are exceedingly erroneous and defective. For example: "The verb TO BE, has always a nominative case after it, unless it be in the infinitive mode."—Lowth's Gram., p. 77. "The verb TO BE requires the same case after it as before it."—Churchill's Gram., p. 142. "The verb TO BE, through all its variations, has the same case after it, expressed or understood, as that which next precedes it."—Murray's Gram., p. 181; Alger's, 62; Merchant's, 91; Putnam's, 116; Smith's, 97; and many others. "The verb TO BE has usually the same case after it, as that which immediately precedes it."—Hall's Gram., p. 31. "Neuter verbs have the same case after them, as that which next precedes them."—Folker's Gram., p. 14. "Passive verbs which signify naming, and others of a similar nature, have the same case before and after them."—Murray's Gram., p. 182. "A Noun or Pronoun used in predication with a verb, is in the Independent Case. EXAMPLES—'Thou art a scholar.' 'It is I.' 'God is love.'"—S. W. Clark's Pract. Gram., p. 149. So many and monstrous are the faults of these rules, that nothing but very learned and reverend authority, could possibly impose such teaching anywhere. The first, though written by Lowth, is not a whit wiser than to say, "The preposition to has always an infinitive mood after it, unless it be a preposition." And this latter absurdity is even a better rule for all infinitives, than the former for all predicated nominatives. Nor is there much more fitness in any of the rest. "The verb TO BE, through all," or even in any, of its parts, has neither "always" nor usually a case "expressed or understood" after it; and, even when there is a noun or a pronoun put after it, the case is, in very many instances, not to be determined by that which "next" or "immediately" precedes the verb. Examples: "A sect of freethinkers is a sum of ciphers."—Bentley. "And I am this day weak, though anointed king."—2 Sam., iii, 39. "What made Luther a great man, was his unshaken reliance on God."—Kortz's Life of Luther, p. 13. "The devil offers his service; He is sent with a positive commission to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets."—Calvin's Institutes, p. 131. It is perfectly certain that in these four texts, the words sum, king, reliance, and spirit, are nominatives, after the verb or participle; and not objectives, as they must be, if there were any truth in the common assertion, "that the two cases, which, in the construction of the sentence, are the next before and after it, must always be alike."—Smith's New Gram., p. 98. Not only may the nominative before the verb be followed by an objective, but the nominative after it may be preceded by a possessive; as, "Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, was not a prophet's son."—"It is the king's chapel, and it is the king's court."—Amos, vii, 13. How ignorant then must that person be, who cannot see the falsity of the instructions above cited! How careless the reader who overlooks it!
NOTES TO RULE VI.
NOTE I.—The putting of a noun in an unknown case after a participle or a participial noun, produces an anomaly which it seems better to avoid; for the cases ought to be clear, even in exceptions to the common rules of construction. Examples: (1.) "WIDOWHOOD, n. The state of being a widow."—Webster's Dict. Say rather, "WIDOWHOOD, n. The state of a widow."—Johnson, Walker, Worcester. (2.) "I had a suspicion of the fellow's being a swindler/" Say rather, "I had a suspicion that the fellow was a swindler." (3.) "To prevent its being a dry detail of terms."—Buck. Better, "To prevent it from being a dry detail of terms." [361]
NOTE II.—The nominative which follows a verb or participle, ought to accord in signification, either literally or figuratively, with the preceding term which is taken for a sign of the same thing. Errors: (1.) "To be convicted of bribery, was then a crime altogether unpardonable."—Blair's Rhet., p. 265. To be convicted of a crime, is not the crime itself; say, therefore, "Bribery was then a crime altogether unpardonable." (2.) "The second person is the object of the Imperative."—Murray's Gram., Index, ii, 292. Say rather, "The second person is the subject of the imperative;" for the object of a verb is the word governed by it, and not its nominative.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE VI.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.—OF PROPER IDENTITY.
"Who would not say, 'If it be me,' rather than, If it be I?"—Priestley's Gram., p. 105.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronoun me,—which comes after the neuter verb be, is in the objective case, and does not agree with the pronoun it, the verb's nominative,[362] which refers to the same thing. But, according to Rule 6th, "A noun or a pronoun put after a verb or participle not transitive, agrees in case with a preceding noun or pronoun referring to the same thing." Therefore, me should be I; thus, "Who would not say, 'If it be I,' rather than, 'If it be me?'">[