The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

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.

NOTES TO RULE XX.

NOTE I.—Active participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived; the preposition of, therefore, should never be used after the participle, when the verb does not require it. Thus, in phrases like the following, of is improper: "Keeping of one day in seven;"—"By preaching of repentance;"—"They left beating of Paul."

NOTE II.—When a transitive participle is converted into a noun, of must be inserted to govern the object following; as, "So that there was no withstanding of him."—Walker's Particles. p. 252. "The cause of their salvation doth not so much arise from their embracing of mercy, as from God's exercising of it"—Penington's Works, Vol. ii, p. 91. "Faith is the receiving of Christ with the whole soul."—Baxter. "In thy pouring-out of thy fury upon Jerusalem."—Ezekiel, ix, 8.

NOTE III.—When the insertion of the word of, to complete the conversion of the transitive participle into a noun, produces ambiguity or harshness, some better phraseology must be chosen. Example: "Because the action took place prior to the taking place of the other past action."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 140. Here the words prior and place have no regular construction; and if we say, "prior to the taking of place of the other," we make the jumble still worse. Say therefore, "Because the action took place before the other past action;"—or, "Because the action took place previously to the other past action."

NOTE IV.—When participles become nouns, their adverbs should either become adjectives, or be taken as parts of such nouns, written as compound words: or, if neither of these methods be agreeable, a greater change should be made. Examples of error: 1. "Rightly understanding a sentence, depends very much on a knowledge of its grammatical construction."—Comly's Gram., 12th Ed., p. 8. Say, "The right understanding of a sentence," &c. 2. "Elopement is a running away, or private departure."—Webster's El. Spelling-Book. p. 102. Write "running-away" as one word. 3. "If they [Milton's descriptions] have any faults, it is their alluding too frequently to matters of learning, and to fables of antiquity."—Blair's Rhet., p. 451. Say, "If they have any fault, it is that they allude too frequently," &c.

NOTE V.—When the participle is followed by an adjective, its conversion into a noun appears to be improper; because the construction of the adjective becomes anomalous, and its relation doubtful: as, "When we speak of 'ambition's being restless' or, 'a disease's being deceitful.'"—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 346; Kirkham's, p. 224. This ought to be, "When we speak of ambition as being restless, or a disease as being deceitful;" but Dr. Blair, from whom the text originally came, appears to have written it thus: "When we speak of ambition's being restless, or a disease being deceitful."—LECT. xvi, p. 155. This is inconsistent with itself; for one noun is possessive, and the other, objective. NOTE VI.—When a compound participle is converted into a noun, the hyphen seems to be necessary, to prevent ambiguity; but such compound nouns are never elegant, and it is in general better to avoid them, by some change in the expression. Example: "Even as the being healed of a wound, presupposeth the plaster or salve: but not, on the contrary; for the application of the plaster presupposeth not the being healed."—Barclays Works, Vol. i, p. 143. The phrase, "the being healed" ought to mean only, the creature healed; and not, the being-healed, or the healing received, which is what the writer intended. But the simple word healing might have been used in the latter sense; for, in participial nouns, the distinction of voice and of tense are commonly disregarded.

NOTE VII.—A participle should not be used where the infinitive mood, the verbal noun, a common substantive, or a phrase equivalent, will better express the meaning. Examples: 1. "But placing an accent on the second syllable of these words, would entirely derange them."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 239. Say rather, "But, to place an accent—But the placing of an accent—or, But an accent placed on the second syllable of these words, would entirely derange them." 2. "To require their being in that case."—Ib., Vol. ii, p. 21. Say, "To require them to be in that case." 3. "She regrets not having read it."—West's Letters, p. 216. Say, "She regrets that she has not read it." Or, "She does not regret that she has read it." For the text is equivocal, and admits either of these senses.

NOTE VIII.—A participle used for a nominative after be, is, was, &c., produces a construction which is more naturally understood to be a compound form of the verb; and which is therefore not well adapted to the sense intended, when one tells what something is, was, or may be. Examples: 1. "Whose business is shoeing animals."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 365. Say, "Whose business it is, to shoe animals;"—or, "Whose business is the shoeing of animals." 2. "This was in fact converting the deposite to his own use."—Murray's Key, ii, p. 200. Say rather, "This was in fact a converting of the deposite to his own use."—Ib.

NOTE IX.—Verbs of preventing should be made to govern, not the participle in ing, nor what are called substantive phrases, but the objective case of a noun or pronoun; and if a participle follow, it ought to be governed by the preposition from: as, "But the admiration due to so eminent a poet, must not prevent us from remarking some other particulars in which he has failed."—Blair's Rhet., p. 438. Examples of error: 1. "I endeavoured to prevent letting him escape"—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 150. Say,—"to prevent his escape." 2. "To prevent its being connected with the nearest noun."—Churchill's Gram., p. 367. Say, "To prevent it from being connected," &c. 3. "To prevent it bursting out with open violence."—Robertson's America, Vol. ii, p. 146. Say, "To prevent it from bursting out," &c. 4. "To prevent their injuring or murdering of others."—Brown's Divinity, p. 26. Say rather, "To prevent them from injuring or murdering others."

NOTE X.—In the use of participles and of verbal nouns, the leading word in sense should always be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and where there is reason to doubt whether the possessive case or some other ought to come before the participle, it is better to reject both, and vary the expression. Examples: "Any person may easily convince himself of the truth of this, by listening to foreigners conversing in a language [which] he does not understand."—Churchill's Gram., p. 361. "It is a relic of the ancient style abounding with negatives."—Ib., p. 367. These forms are right; though the latter might be varied, by the insertion of "which abounds" for "abounding." But the celebrated examples before cited, about the "lady holding up her train," or the "lady's holding up her train,"—the "person dismissing his servant," or the "person's dismissing his servant,"—the "horse running to-day," or the "horse's running to-day,"—and many others which some grammarians suppose to be interchangeable, are equally bad in both forms.

NOTE XI.—Participles, in general, however construed, should have a clear reference to the proper subject of the being, action, or passion. The following sentence is therefore faulty: "By establishing good laws, our peace is secured."—Russell's Gram., p. 88; Folker's, p. 27. Peace not being the establisher of the laws, these authors should have said, "By establishing good laws, we secure our peace." "There will be no danger of spoiling their faces, or of gaining converts."—Murray's Key, ii, p. 201. This sentence is to me utterly unintelligible. If the context were known, there might possibly be some sense in saying, "They will be in no danger of spoiling their faces," &c. "The law is annulled, in the very act of its being made."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 267. "The act of MAKING a law," is a phrase intelligible; but, "the act of its BEING MADE," is a downright solecism—a positive absurdity.

NOTE XII.—A needless or indiscriminate use of participles for nouns, or of nouns for participles, is inelegant, if not improper, and ought therefore to be avoided. Examples: "Of denotes possession or belonging."— Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 118; Ingersoll's, 71. "The preposition of, frequently implies possession, property, or belonging to."—Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram., p. 137. Say, "Of frequently denotes possession, or the relation of property." "England perceives the folly of the denying of such concessions."—Nixon's Parser, p. 149. Expunge the and the last of, that denying may stand as a participle.

NOTE XIII.—Perfect participles being variously formed, care should be taken to express them agreeably to the best usage, and also to distinguish them from the preterits of their verbs, where there is any difference of form. Example: "It would be well, if all writers who endeavour to be accurate, would be careful to avoid a corruption at present so prevalent, of saying, it was wrote, for, it was written; he was drove, for, he was driven; I have went, for, I have gone, &c., in all which instances a verb is absurdly used to supply the proper participle, without any necessity from the want of such word."—Harris's Hermes, p. 186.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XX. EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.—EXPUNGE OF.

"In forming of his sentences, he was very exact."—Error noticed by
Murray, Vol. i, p. 194.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the preposition of is used after the participle forming, whose verb does not require it. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 20th, "Active participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived; the preposition of, therefore, should not be used after the participle, when the verb does not require it." Therefore, of should be omitted; thus, "In forming his sentences, he was very exact."]

"For not believing of