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

in the phrases, "[Greek: pleion touton]" and "plus his," above. Of such a construction our language admits no real example; that is, no exact parallel. But we have an imitation of it in the phrase than whom, as in this hackneyed example from Milton:

   "Which, when Beëlzebub perceived, than whom,
    Satan except, none higher sat," &c.—Paradise Lost, B. ii, l. 300.

The objective, whom, is here preferred to the nominative, who, because the Latin ablative is commonly rendered by the former case, rather than by the latter: but this phrase is no more explicable according to the usual principles of English grammar, than the error of putting the objective case for a version of the ablative absolute. If the imitation is to be judged allowable, it is to us a figure of syntax—an obvious example of Enallagè, and of that form of Enallagè, which is commonly called Antiptosis, or the putting of one case for an other.

OBS. 19.—This use of whom after than has greatly puzzled and misled our grammarians; many of whom have thence concluded that than must needs be, at least in this instance, a preposition,[435] and some have extended the principle beyond this, so as to include than which, than whose with its following noun, and other nominatives which they will have to be objectives; as, "I should seem guilty of ingratitude, than which nothing is more shameful." See Russell's Gram., p. 104. "Washington, than whose fame naught earthly can be purer."—Peirce's Gram., p. 204. "You have given him more than I. You have sent her as much as he."—Buchanan's Eng. Syntax, p. 116. These last two sentences are erroneously called by their author, "false syntax;" not indeed with a notion that than and as are prepositions, but on the false supposition that the preposition to must necessarily be understood between them and the pronouns, as it is between the preceding verbs and the pronouns him and her. But, in fact, "You have given him more than I," is perfectly good English; the last clause of which plainly means—"more than I have given him." And, "You have sent her as much as he," will of course be understood to mean—"as much as he has sent her;" but here, because the auxiliary implied is different from the one expressed, it might have been as well to have inserted it: thus, "You have sent her as much as he has." "She reviles you as much as he," is also good English, though found, with the foregoing, among Buchanan's examples of "false syntax."

OBS. 20.—Murray's twentieth Rule of syntax avers, that, "When the qualities of different things are compared, the latter noun or pronoun is not governed by the conjunction than or as, but agrees with the verb," &c.—Octavo Gram., p. 214; Russell's Gram., 103; Bacon's, 51; Alger's, 71; Smith's, 179; Fisk's, 138. To this rule, the great Compiler and most of his followers say, that than whom "is an exception." or "seems to form an exception;" to which they add, that, "the phrase is, however, avoided by the best modern writers."—Murray, i, 215. This latter assertion Russell conceives to be untrue: the former he adopts; and, calling than whom "an exception to the general rule," says of it, (with no great consistency,) "Here the conjunction than has certainly the force of a preposition, and supplies its place by governing the relative."—Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram., p. 104. But this is hardly an instance to which one would apply the maxim elsewhere adopted by Murray: "Exceptio probat regulam."—Octavo Gram., p. 205. To ascribe to a conjunction the governing power of a preposition, is a very wide step, and quite too much like straddling the line which separates these parts of speech one from the other.

OBS. 21.—Churchill says, "If there be no ellipsis to supply, as sometimes happens when a pronoun relative occurs after than; the relative is to be put in the objective case absolute: as, 'Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned, deserves to be held up as a model to all future sovereigns.'"—New Gram., p. 153. Among his Notes, he has one with reference to this "objective case absolute," as follows: "It is not governed by the conjunction, for on no other occasion does a conjunction govern any case; or by any word understood, for we can insert no word, or words, that will reconcile the phrase with any other rule of grammar: and if we employ a pronoun personal instead of the relative, as he, which will admit of being resolved elliptically, it must be put in the nominative case."—Ib., p. 352. Against this gentleman's doctrine, one may very well argue, as he himself does against that of Murray, Russell, and others; that on no other occasion do we speak of putting "the objective case absolute;" and if, agreeably to the analogy of our own tongue, our distinguished authors would condescend to say than who,[436] surely nobody would think of calling this an instance of the nominative case absolute,—except perhaps one swaggering new theorist, that most pedantic of all scoffers, Oliver B. Peirce.

OBS. 22.—The sum of the matter is this: the phrase, than who, is a more regular and more analogical expression than than whom; but both are of questionable propriety, and the former is seldom if ever found, except in some few grammars; while the latter, which is in some sort a Latinism, may be quoted from many of our most distinguished writers. And, since that which is irregular cannot be parsed by rule, if out of respect to authority we judge it allowable, it must be set down among the figures of grammar; which are, all of them, intentional deviations from the ordinary use of words. One late author treats the point pretty well, in this short hint: "After the conjunction than, contrary to analogy, whom is used in stead of who."—Nutting's Gram., p. 106. An other gives his opinion in the following note: "When who immediately follows than, it is used improperly in the objective case; as, 'Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned;'—than whom is not grammatical. It ought to be, than who; because who is the nominative to was understood.—Than whom is as bad a phrase as 'he is taller than him.' It is true that some of our best writers have used than whom; but it is also true, that they have used other phrases which we have rejected as ungrammatical; then why not reject this too?"—Lennie's Grammar, Edition of 1830, p. 105.

OBS. 23.—On this point. Bullions and Brace, two American copyists and plagiarists of Lennie, adopt opposite notions. The latter copies the foregoing note, without the last sentence; that is, without admitting that "than whom" has ever been used by good writers. See Brace's Gram., p. 90. The former says, "The relative usually follows than in the objective case, even when the nominative goes before; as, 'Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned.' This anomaly it is difficult to explain. Most probably, than, at first had the force of a preposition, which it now retains only when followed by the relative."—Bullions, E. Gram., of 1843, p. 112. Again: "A relative after than is put in the objective case; as, 'Satan, than whom none higher sat.' This anomaly has not been satisfactorily explained. In this case, some regard than as a preposition. It is probably only a case of simple enallagé"—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., of 1849, p. 191. Prof. Fowler, in his great publication, of 1850, says of this example, "The expression should be, Satan, than who None higher sat."—Fowler's E. Gram., §482, Note 2. Thus, by one single form of antiptosis, have our grammarians been as much divided and perplexed, as were the Latin grammarians by a vast number of such changes; and, since there were some among the latter, who insisted on a total rejection of the figure, there is no great presumption in discarding, if we please, the very little that remains of it in English.

OBS. 24.—Peirce's new theory of grammar rests mainly on the assumption, that no correct sentence ever is, or can be, in any wise, elliptical. This is one of the "Two GRAND PRINCIPLES" on which the author says his "work is based."—The Grammar, p. 10. The other is, that grammar cannot possibly be taught without a thorough reformation of its nomenclature, a reformation involving a change of most of the names and technical terms heretofore used for its elucidation. I do not give precisely his own words, for one half of this author's system is expressed in such language as needs to be translated into English in order to be generally understood; but this is precisely his meaning, and in words more intelligible. In what estimation he holds these two positions, may be judged from the following assertion: "Without these grand points, no work, whatever may be its pretensions, can be A GRAMMAR of the LANGUAGE."—Ib. It follows that no man who does not despise every other book that is called a grammar, can entertain any favourable opinion of Peirce's. The author however is tolerably consistent. He not only scorns to appeal, for the confirmation of his own assertions and rules, to the judgement or practice of any other writer, but counsels the learner to "spurn the idea of quoting, either as proof or for defence, the authority of any man." See p. 13. The notable results of these important premises are too numerous for detail even in this general pandect. But it is to be mentioned here, that, according to this theory, a nominative coming after than or as, is in general to be accounted a nominative absolute; that is, a nominative which is independent of any verb; or, (as the ingenious author himself expresses it,) "A word in the subjective case following another subjective, and immediately preceded by than, as, or not, may be used without an ASSERTER immediately depending on it for sense."—Peirce's Gram., p. 195. See also his "Grammatical Chart, Rule I, Part 2."

OBS. 25.—"Lowth, Priestley, Murray, and most grammarians say, that hypothetical, conditional, concessive, or exceptive conjunctions; as, if, lest, though, unless, except; require, or govern the subjunctive mood. But in this they are certainly wrong: for, as Dr. Crombie rightly observes, the verb is put in the subjunctive mood, because the mood expresses contingency, not because it follows the conjunction: for these writers themselves allow, that the same conjunctions are to be followed by the indicative mood, when the verb is not intended to express a contingency. In the following sentence: 'Though he be displeased at it, I will bolt my door; and let him break it open if he dare:' may we not as well affirm, that and governs the imperative mood, as that though and if govern the subjunctive?"—Churchill's Gram., p. 321.

OBS. 26.—In the list of correspondents contained in Note 7th below, there are some words which ought not to be called conjunctions, by the parser; for the relation of a word as the proper correspondent to an other word, does not necessarily determine its part of speech. Thus, such is to be parsed as an adjective; as, sometimes as a pronoun; so, as a conjunctive adverb. And only, merely, also, and even, are sometimes conjunctive adverbs; as, "Nor is this only a matter of convenience to the poet, it is also a source of gratification to the reader."— Campbell's Rhet., p. 166. Murray's, Gram., i, 362. Professor Bullions will have it, that these adverbs may relate to nouns—a doctrine which I disapprove. He says "Only, solely, chiefly, merely, too, also, and perhaps a few others, are sometimes joined to substantives; as, 'Not only the men, but the women also were present.'"—English Gram., p. 116. Only and also are here, I think, conjunctive adverbs; but it is not the office of adverbs to qualify nouns; and, that these words are adjuncts to the nouns men and women, rather than the verb were, which is once expressed and once understood, I see no sufficient reason to suppose. Some teachers imagine, that an adverb of this kind qualifies the whole clause in which it stands. But it would seem, that the relation of such words to verbs, participles, or adjectives, according to the common rule for adverbs, is in general sufficiently obvious: as, "The perfect tense not only refers to what is past, but also conveys an allusion to the present time."—Murray's Gram., p. 70. Is there any question about the true mode of parsing "only" and "also" here? and have they not in the other sentence, a relation similar to what is seen here?

NOTES TO RULE XXII.

NOTE I.—When two terms connected are each to be extended and completed in sense by a third, they must both be such as will make sense with it. Thus, in stead of saying, "He has made alterations and additions to the work," say, "He has made alterations in the work, and additions to it;" because the relation