The Grammar of English Grammars - Goold Brown (spiritual books to read TXT) 📗

ix, 26. That is, "the fame of this miracle;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.

[310] Seldom is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the seldomest, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."—Blair's Rhet., p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative often, was sometimes used adjectively; as, "Thine often infirmities."—1 Tim., v, 23. "I hope God's Book hath not been my seldomest lectures."—Queen Elizabeth, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb forward: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little forwarder to the teeth."—Pron. Dict., Principles, No. 55.

[311] A few instances of the regular inflection of adverbs ending in ly, may be met with in modern compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring sweetlier in the echo."—The Dial, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would safelier stand the test."—Coleridge's Biog. Lit., Vol. ii, p. 53.

[312] De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative pronouns "Conjunctive Adjectives." See Fosdick's Translation, p. 57. He also says, "The words who, which, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive Nouns and Adverbs, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can substitute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words who, which, etc. Thus, when, where, what, how, as, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish when I please;' that is, 'I shall finish at the time at which I please.'—'I know not where I am;' i.e. 'I know not the place in which I am.'"—Ib., p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive adverbs, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word who appears to me to be a pronoun, and not an adjective; and of his "Conjunctive Nouns," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.

[313] "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows—a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making TWO or more significant Sentences to be ONE significant Sentence."—Harris's Hermes, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.

[314] Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho parsed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be parsed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the nature and construcion [sic—KTH] of a single word," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, analyze. As examples of "a conjunctional phrase," he gives "as if and "as though."—Gram., p. 25. But when he comes to speak of ellipsis, he says: "After the conjunctions than, as, but, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [that is which] will suffice;' 'He acted as [he would act] if he were mad.'"—Ib., p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.

[315] Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt. Harrison cites a good example; pronounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "In the following sentence, the relative pronoun is three times omitted:—'Is there a God to swear by, and is there none to believe in, none to trust to?'—Letters and Essays, Anonymous. By, in, and to, as prepositions, stand alone, denuded of the relatives to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."—Harrison's English Language, p. 196.

[316] "An ellipsis of from after the adverb off has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted incorrectly among the prepositions. Ex. 'off (from) his horse.'"—Hart's Gram., p. 96. Off and on are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "from" after the former, than to after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up."—2 Kings, i, 16.

[317] "Who consequently reduced the greatest part of the island TO their own power."—Swift, on the English Tongue. "We can say, that one nation reduces another TO subjection. But when dominion or power is used, we always, as [so] far as I know, say, reduce UNDER their power" [or dominion]—Blair's Rhet., p. 229.

[318] "O foy, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."—DOUBLE DEALER: Kames, El. of Crit., i, 305.

[319] According to Walker and Webster, la is pronounced law; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French la, which is pronounced lah. Johnson and Webster make la and lo synonymous; deriving lo from the Saxon la, and la either from lo or from the French la. "Law, how you joke, cousin."—Columbian Orator, p. 178. "Law me! the very ghosts are come now!"—Ibid. "Law, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"—Ibid.

"La you! If you speak ill of the devil, How he takes it at heart!"—SHAKESPEARE: Joh. Dict., w. La.

[320] The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"—Newspaper. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"—Shakespeare. "Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"—Id. "Suits my complexion—hey, gal? so I think."—Yankee Schoolmaster. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"—SCOTT'S IVANHOE: Fowler's E. Gram., §29.

[321] Though oh and ah are most commonly used as signs of these depressing passions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "Ah, pleasant proof," &c.—Cowper's Task, p. 179. "Merrily oh! merrily oh!"—Moore's Tyrolese Song. "Cheerily oh! cheerily oh!"—Ib. But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection O: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and substitute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.

[322] This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The object cannot properly be called one of the principal parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be the object of a transitive verb; as, 'I wish to ride;' 'I wish you to ride.'"—Ib., p. 37. Or, with the contrary notion, that, "An infinitive may be the object of a preposition, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish for you to ride.'"—Ibid. But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (Ib., p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words added to verbs, and sometimes to other words, to qualify their meaning."—Ib., p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere adjuncts may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the true object of the transitive verb is one of the principal parts of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.

[323] Some writers distinguish sentences as being of three kinds, simple, and complex, and compound; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound. A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is simple; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is complex; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is compound."—Greene's Analysis, p. 3. The term compound, as applied to sentences, is not usually so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A Simple Sentence contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The sun shines.' A Complex Sentence contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The sun and the stars shine.' 'The sun rises and sets.' 'The sun and the stars rise and set.' A Compound Sentence is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The sun shines, and the stars twinkle.' 'The sun rises and sets, as the earth revolves.'"—Pinneo's English Teacher, p. 10; Analytical Gram., pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a complex sentence is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripartite distribution.

[324] The terms clause and member, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called clauses; and those separated by semicolons, are called members."—Hiley' s Gram., p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a clause. When the members of a compound sentence are complex, they are subdivided into clauses; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."—Allen's Gram., p. 128. By some authors, the terms clause and phrase are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import. Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "composing frequently," is absurdly called a clause; "an entire clause of a sentence."—See Murray's Gram., p. 179; Alger's, 61; Fisk's, 108; Ingersoll's, 180; Merchant's, 84; R. C. Smith's, 152; Weld's, 2d Ed., 150. The term sentence also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "James and William," "Thomas and John," and others similar, are called "sentences."—Smith's New Gram., pp. 9 and 10. So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A whole sentence is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' Being a young man, is the object of the preposition of."—Weld's E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "being a young man," here depends upon "of;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "being." The construction of the word "man" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all agreement consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but government is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word in parsing never governs the same word which it qualifies, or with which it agrees."—Practical Gram., p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case governs a verb."—Ib. p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following untrue, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, an consequently agrees with, the preceding word."—Exercises, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, and consequently agrees with it."—Key, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form. See the same example, with the same variation of it, in Smith's