Chapter VII: Participles (2)

OBS. 27.--But, before we say any thing more about the government of this case, let us look at our author's next paragraph on participles: "An active participle, preceded by _an article_ or by _a genitive_, is elegantly followed by the preposition _of_, before the substantive which follows it; as, _the_ compiling _of_ that book occupied several years; _his_ quitting _of_ the army was unexpected."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 171. Here the participial nouns _compiling_ and _quitting_ are improperly called active participles, from which they are certainly as fairly distinguished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever. And this complete distinction the author considers at least an elegance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition. And he immediately adds: "When this construction produces _ambiguity_, the expression _must be varied_."--_Ib._, p. 171. This suggestion is left without illustration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray's remarks, in which it is said: "A phrase in which the article precedes the _present participle_ and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition. 'He expressed the pleasure he had _in the hearing of_ the philosopher,' is _capable of a different sense_ from, 'He expressed the pleasure he had _in hearing_ the philosopher.'"--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 193; _R. C. Smith's Gram._, 161; _Ingersoll's_, 199; and others. Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word _hearing_ a "present participle;" and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful comma, still more absurdly supposes it ambiguous: whereas the phrase, "in the hearing _of the philosopher_," means only, "in the _philosopher's_ hearing;" and not, "in hearing the philosopher," or, "in hearing _of_ the philosopher." But the true question is, would it be right to say, "He expressed the pleasure he had in the _philosopher's_ hearing _him_?" For here it would be _equivocal_ to say, "in the philosopher's hearing _of_ him;" and some aver, that _of_ would be wrong, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear. But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and compare it with his own doctrines. To say, "from _our_ having received _of_ the words through a French medium," would certainly be no elegance; and if it be not an ambiguity, it is something worse. The expression, then, "must be varied." But varied how? Is it right without the _of_, though contrary to the author's rule for elegance?

OBS. 28.--The observations which have been made on this point, under the rule for the possessive case, while they show, to some extent, the inconsistencies in doctrine, and the improprieties of practice, into which the difficulties of the mixed participle have betrayed some of our principal grammarians, bring likewise the weight of much authority and reason against the custom of blending without distinction the characteristics of nouns and participles in the same word or words; but still they may not be thought sufficient to prove this custom to be altogether wrong; nor do they pretend to have fully established the dogma, that such a construction is in no instance admissible. They show, however, that possessives before participles are _seldom_ to be approved; and perhaps, in the present instance, the meaning might be quite as well expressed by a common substantive, or the regular participial noun: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from _our reception of_ the words--or _our receiving of_ the words--through a French medium." But there are some examples which it is not easy to amend, either in this way, or in any other; as, "The miscarriages of youth have very much proceeded from _their being imprudently indulged_, or _left_ to themselves."--_Friends' N. E. Discipline_, p. 13. And there are instances too, of a similar character, in which the possessive case cannot be used. For example: "Nobody will doubt of _this being_ a sufficient proof."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 66. "But instead of _this being_ the fact of the case, &c."--_Butlers Analogy_, p. 137. "There is express historical or traditional evidence, as ancient as history, of the _system_ of religion _being taught_ mankind by revelation."--_Ibid._ "From _things_ in it _appearing_ to men foolishness."--_Ib._, p. 175. "As to the consistency of the _members_ of our society _joining_ themselves to those called free-masons."--_N. E. Discip._, p. 51. "In _either of these cases happening_, the _person charging_ is at liberty to bring the matter before the church, who are the only _judges_ now _remaining_."--_Ib._, p. 36; _Extracts_, p. 57. "Deriving its efficacy from the _power of God fulfilling_ his purpose."--_Religious World_, Vol. ii, p. 235. "We have no idea of any certain _portion of time intervening_ between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 33: _Murray's_, i, 70; _Emmons's_, 41; and others. The following example therefore, however the participle may seem to be the leading word in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: "The reason and time of the _Son of God's becoming_ man."--_Brown's Divinity_, p. xxii. Many writers would here be satisfied with merely omitting the possessive sign; as does Churchill, in the following example: "The chief cause of this appears to me to lie in _grammarians having considered_ them solely as the signs of tense."--_New Gram._, p. 243. But this sort of construction, too, whenever the noun before the participle is not the leading word in sense, is ungrammatical. In stead, therefore, of stickling for choice between two such errors, we ought to adopt some better expression; as, "The reason and time of the _Saviour's incarnation_."--"The chief cause of this appears to me to _be, that_ grammarians _have_ considered them solely as signs of tense."

OBS. 29.--It is certain that the noun or pronoun which "limits the meaning of a participle," cannot always be "put in the _genitive_" or _possessive_ case; for the sense intended sometimes positively forbids such a construction, and requires the objective: as, "A syllable consists of one or more _letters forming_ one sound."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 29. The word _representing_ or _denoting_ would here be better than _forming_, because the letters do not, strictly speaking, _form_ the sound. But chiefly let it be noticed, that the word _letters_ could not with any propriety have been put in the possessive case. Nor is it always necessary or proper, to prefer that case, where the sense may be supposed to admit it; as, "'The example which Mr. Seyer has adduced, of the _gerund governing_ the genitive of the agent.' Dr. Crombie."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 237. "Which possibly might have been prevented by _parents doing_ their duty."--_N. E. Discipline_, p. 187. "As to the seeming contradiction of _One being_ Three, and _Three_ One."--_Religious World_, Vol. ii, p. 113. "You have watched _them climbing_ from chair to chair."--PIERPONT: _Liberator_, Vol. x, p. 22. "Whether the world came into being as it is, by an intelligent _Agent forming_ it thus, or not."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 129. "In the farther supposition of necessary _agents being_ thus rewarded and punished."--_Ib._, p. 140. "He grievously punished the _Israelites murmuring_ for want of water."--_Leslie, on Tythes_, p. 21. Here too the words, _gerund, parents, One, Three, them, Agent, agents_, and _Israelites_, are rightly put in the objective case; yet doubtless some will think, though I do not, that they might as well have been put in the possessive. Respectable writers sometimes use the latter case, where the former would convey the same meaning, and be more regular; as, "Which is used, as active verbs often are, without its _regimen's_ being expressed."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 302. Omit the apostrophe and _s_; and, if you please, the word _being_ also. "The daily instances of _men's_ dying around us."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 113. Say rather,--"of _men_ dying around us." "To prevent _our_ rashly engaging in arduous or dangerous enterprises."--_Brown's Divinity_, p. 17. Say, "To prevent _us from_," &c. The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong: "The kitchen too now begins to give 'dreadful note of preparation;' not from _armourers_ accomplishing the knights, but from the _shop maid's_ chopping _force meat_, the _apprentice's_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman's_ receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table."--_West's Letters to a Lady_, p. 66. It should be--"not from _armorers_ accomplishing the knights, but from the _shopmaid_ chopping _forcemeat_, the _apprentice_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman_ receiving," &c. The nouns are the principal words, and the participles are adjuncts. They might be separated by commas, if semicolons were put where the commas now are.

OBS. 30.--Our authors, good and bad, critics and no critics, with few exceptions, write sometimes the objective case before the participle, and sometimes the possessive, under precisely the same circumstances; as, "We should, presently, be sensible of the _melody_ suffering."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 122. "We should, presently, be sensible of the _melody's_ suffering."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 327. "We _shall_ presently be sensible of the _melody_ suffering."--_Murray's Exercises_, 8vo, p. 60. "We shall presently be sensible of the _melody's_ suffering."--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p. 195. "And I explain what is meant by the nominative _case governing_ the verb, and by the _verb agreeing_ with its nominative case."--_Rand's Gram._, p. 31. "Take the verb _study_, and speak of _John's studying_ his lesson, at different times."--_Ib._, p. 53. "The following are examples of the nominative _case being used_ instead of the objective."--_J. M. Putnam's Gram._, p. 112. "The following are examples of an _adverb's qualifying_ a whole sentence."--_Ib._, p. 128. "Where the noun is the name of a _person_, the cases may also be distinguished by the _nominative's_ answering to WHO, and the _objective_ to WHOM."--_Hart's Gram._, p. 46. "This depends chiefly on _their_ being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel _sound_ being long or short."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 182. "When they speak of a _monosyllable_ having the grave or the acute accent."--_Walker's Key_, p. 328. Here some would erroneously prefer the possessive case before "_having_;" but, if any amendment can be effected it is only by inserting _as_ there. "The _event of Maria's loving_ her brother."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 55. "Between that and the _man being_ on it."--_Ib._, p. 59. "The fact of _James placing_ himself."--_Ib._, p. 166. "The event of the _persons' going_."--_Ib._, p. 165. Here _persons'_ is carelessly put for _person's_, i.e., _James's_: the author was _parsing_ the puerile text, "James went into a store and placed himself beside Horatio."--_Ib._, p. 164. And I may observe, in passing, that Murray and Blair are both wrong in using commas with the adverb _presently_ above.

OBS. 31.--It would be easy to fill a page with instances of these two cases, the objective and the possessive, used, as I may say, indiscriminately; nor is there any other principle by which we can determine which of them is right, or which preferable, than that the leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in the construction, and that the participle, if it remain such, ought rather to relate to its noun, as being the adjunct, than to govern it in the possessive, as being the principal term. To what extent either of these cases may properly be used before the participle, or in what instances either of them may be preferable to the other, it is not very easy to determine. Both are used a great deal too often, filling with blemishes the style of many authors: the possessive, because the participle is not the name of any thing that can be possessed; the objective, because no construction can be right in which the relation of the terms is not formed according to the sense. The former usage I have already criticised to a great extent. Let one example suffice here: "There can be no objection to a _syllable's being long_, on the ground of _its not being so long_, or so much protracted, as some other long syllables are."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer _syllable_ to _syllable's_, but none would be apt to put _it_ for _its_, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a _syllable as being long_, on the ground _that it is not so long_ as some other syllables."

OBS. 32.--It should be observed, that the use of _as_ between the participle and the noun is _very often_ better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military _success as forming_ a claim to civil position."--_Boston Daily Advertiser_. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any _one being chosen_ for a pattern."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its _authenticity being shaken_, it has been rendered more sure than ever."-- _West's Letters_, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper _candidate being nominated_ by either party."--_Liberator_, Vol. x. p. 9. "On the first _stone being thrown_, it was returned by a fire of musketry."--_Ib._, p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent _person being circumvented_ by bribery."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 276. "Whose principles forbid _them taking_ part in the administration of the government."-- _Liberator_, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross _bodies being_ ourselves."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 150. "In consequence of this _revelation being made_."--_Ib._, p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "_Scarcely is_ any one _ever_ chosen for a pattern."-- "_Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken_, has been rendered more sure than ever."--"When there is no longer a possibility _that_ a proper candidate _will be_ nominated by either party."--"_As soon as_ the first stone _was_ thrown, _there_ was returned a fire of musketry."--"To raise a cry, _as if_ an innocent person _had been_ circumvented by bribery."-- "Whose principles forbid them _to take_ part in the administration of the government."--"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies _are_ ourselves."--"In consequence of this revelation _which is_ made."

OBS. 33.--A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some _late writers_ have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady _Macbeth's_ walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady _Macbeth_ walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.' This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, _Lady Macbeth_; whereas the meaning is, not that _Lady Macbeth_, but her _walking in her sleep_, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my _horse running_ to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."-- _Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram._, p. 15. (See _Crombie's Treatise_, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. _A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case_; as, Much will depend on the _pupil's composing_ frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my _horse running_ to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my _horse's running_? means, he _has_ run, do you think he ran well?"-- _Lennie's Gram._, p. 91; _Brace's Gram._, 94. See _Bullions's Gram._, p. 107; _Hiley's_, 94; _Murray's_, 8vo. 195: _Ingersoll's_, 201: and many others.

OBS. 34.--Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word _walking_, preceded by a possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a _noun_, and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use of possessives before _participles_, and even to hold all phraseology of this kind "unobjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of that blunder is different from the thousand errors or irregularities which they intend to shelter under it. To call a lady an "incident," is just as far from any Latin idiom, as it is from good English; whereas the very thing which they thus object to at first, they afterwards approve in this text: "What think you of my _horse running_ to-day?" This phraseology corresponds with "_the Latin idiom_;" and it is this, that, in fact, they begin with pronouncing to be "less correct" than, "What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day?"

OBS. 35.--Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction of signification; as, if "the _horse's running_ to-day," must needs imply a past action, though, (they suppose,) "the _pupil's composing_ frequently," or, "the _horse running_ to-day," signifies a _future_ one. This distinction of time is altogether _imaginary_; and the notion, that to prefer the possessive case before participles, is merely to withstand an error of "_some late writers_," is altogether false. The instructions above cited, therefore, determine nothing rightly, except the inaccuracy of one very uncommon form of expression. For, according to our best grammarians, the simple mode of correction there adopted will scarcely be found applicable to any other text. It will not be right where the participle happens to be transitive, or even where it is qualified by an adverb. From their subsequent examples, it is plain that these gentlemen think otherwise; but still, who can understand what they mean by "_the common mode of expression_?" What, for instance, would they substitute for the following very inaccurate expression from the critical belles-lettres of Dr. Blair? "A _mother accusing_ her son, and _accusing_ him of such actions, _as having_ first _bribed_ judges to condemn her husband, and _having_ afterwards _poisoned_ him, _were circumstances_ that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."--_Blair's Lectures_, p. 274. Would they say. "A _mother's accusing her son_, &c., _were circumstances_," &c.? Is this their "common mode of expression?" and if it is, do they not make "common" what is no better English than the Doctor's? If, to accuse a son, and to accuse him greatly, can be considered different circumstances of the same prosecution, the sentence may be corrected thus: "A _mother's_ accusing _of_ her son, and _her charging of_ him _with_ such actions, as _those of_ having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circumstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."

OBS. 36.--On several occasions, as in the tenth and twelfth observations on Rule 4th, and in certain parts of the present series, some notice has been taken of the equivalence or difference of meaning, real or supposed, between the construction of the possessive, and that of an other case, before the participle; or between the participial and the substantive use of words in _ing_. Dr. Priestley, to whom, as well as to Dr. Lowth, most of our grammarians are indebted for some of their doctrines respecting this sort of derivatives, pretends to distinguish them, both as constituting different parts of speech, and as conveying different meanings. In one place, he says, "When a word ending in _ing_ is preceded by an article, it seems to be used as a _noun_; and therefore _ought not to govern an other word_, without the intervention of a preposition."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 157. And in an other: "Many nouns are derived from verbs, and end in _ing_, like participles of the present tense. The difference between these nouns and participles is often overlooked, and the accurate distinction of the two senses not attended to. If I say, What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day, I use the NOUN _running_, and suppose the horse to have actually run; for it is the same thing as if I had said, What think you of _the running of_ my horse. But if I say, What think you of my _horse running_ to-day, I use the PARTICIPLE, and I mean to ask, whether it be proper that my horse should run or not: which, therefore, supposes that he had not then run."--_Ib._, p. 122. Whatever our other critics say about the _horse running_ or the _horse's running_, they have in general borrowed from Priestley, with whom the remark originated, as it here stands. It appears that Crombie, Murray, Maunder, Lennie, Bullions, Ingersoll, Barnard, Hiley, and others, approve the doctrine thus taught, or at least some part of it; though some of them, if not all, thereby contradict themselves.

ODS. 37.--By the two examples here contrasted, Priestley designed to establish a distinction, not for these texts only, but for _all similar expressions_--a distinction both of the noun from the participle, and of the different senses which he supposed these two constructions to exhibit. In all this, there is a complete failure. Yet with what remarkable ductility and implicitness do other professed critics take for granted what this superficial philologer so hastily prescribes! By acknowledging with reference to such an application of them, that the two constructions above are both _good English_, our grammarians do but the more puzzle their disciples respecting the choice between them; just as Priestley himself was puzzled, when he said, "So we _may either say_, I remember _it being reckoned_, a great exploit; or, _perhaps more elegantly_, I remember _its being reckoned_, &c."--_Gram._, p. 70. Murray and others omit this "_perhaps_," and while they allow both forms to be good, decidedly prefer the latter; but neither Priestley, nor any of the rest, ever pretended to discern in these a difference of signification, or even of parts of speech. For my part, in stead of approving either of these readings about the "_great exploit_," I have rejected both, for reasons which have already been given; and now as to the first two forms of the _horserace question_, so far as they may strictly be taken for models, I cannot but condemn them also, and for the same reasons: to which reasons may be joined the additional one, that neither expression is well adapted to the sense which the author himself gives to it in his interpretation. If the Doctor designed to ask, "Do you think my horse ran well to-day?" or, "Do you think it proper for my horse to run to-day?" he ought to have used one or the other of these unequivocal and unobjectionable expressions. There is in fact between the others, no such difference of meaning as he imagines; nor does he well distinguish "the NOUN _running_" from the PARTICIPLE _runnning_; because he apparently allows the word, in both instances, to be qualified by the adverb _to-day_.[422]

OBS. 38.--It is clear, that the participle in _ing_ partakes sometimes the nature of its verb and _an adjective_; so that it relates to a noun, like an adjective, and yet implies time, and, if transitive, governs an object, like a verb: as, "Horses _running_ a race." Hence, by dropping what here distinguishes it as a participle, the word may become an adjective, and stand before its noun; as, "A _running_ brook." So, too, this participle sometimes partakes the nature of its verb and _a noun_; so that it may be governed by a preposition, like a noun, though in itself it has no cases or numbers, but is indeclinable: as "In _running_ a race." Hence, again, by dropping what distinguishes it as a participle, it may become a noun; as, "_Running_ is a safer sport than _wrestling_." Now, if to a participle we prefix something which makes it an adjective, we also take away its regimen, by inserting a preposition; as, "A doctrine _un_deserving _of_ praise,"--"A man _un_compromising _in_ his principles." So, if we put before it an article, an adjective, or a possessive, and thus give to the participle a substantive character or relation, there is reason to think, that we ought, in like manner, to take away its regimen, and its adverb too, if it have any, and be careful also to distinguish this noun from the participial adjective; as, "_The_ running _of_ a race,"--"_No_ racing _of_ horses,"--"_Your_ deserving _of_ praise."--"A _man's_ compromising _of_ his principles." With respect to the articles, or any adjectives, it seems now to be generally conceded, that these are signs of _substantives_; and that, if added to participles, they must cause them to be taken, in all respects, _substantively_. But with respect to possessives before participles, the common practice of our writers very extensively indulges the mixed construction of which I have said so much, and concerning the propriety of which, the opinions of our grammarians are so various, so confused, and so self-contradictory.

OBS. 39.--Though the participle with a nominative or an objective before it, is not _in general_, equivalent to the verbal noun or the mixed participle with a possessive before it; and though the significations of the two phrases are often so widely different as to make it palpably absurd to put either for the other; yet the instances are not few in which it makes little or no difference _to the sense_, which of the two forms we prefer, and therefore, in these instances, I would certainly choose the more simple and regular construction; or, where a better than either can readily be found, reject both. It is also proper to have some regard to the structure of other languages, and to the analogy of General Grammar. If there be "some late writers" who are chargeable with "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," there are perhaps more who as idly affect what they suppose "consonant with the genius of our language." I allude to those who would prefer the possessive case in a text like the following: "Wherefore is this noise of the _city being_ in an uproar?"'--_1 Kings_, i, 41. "Quid sibi vult clamor civitatis tumultuantis?"--_Vulgate_. "[Greek: _Gis hæ phonæ tæs poleos æchousæs_];"--_Septuagint_. Literally: "What [_means_] the clamour of the _city resounding_?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui est ainsi émue?"--_French Bible_. Literally: "What means this noise of the _city which is so moved_?" Better English: "What means this noise _with which the city rings_?" In the following example, there is a seeming imitation of the foregoing Latin or Greek construction; but it may well be doubted whether it would be any improvement to put the word "_disciples_" in the possessive case; nor is it easy to find a third form which would be better than these: "Their difficulties will not be increased by the intended _disciples having ever resided_ in a Christian country."--_West's Letters_, p. 119.

OBS. 40.--It may be observed of these different relations between participles and other words, that _nouns_ are much more apt to be put in the nominative or the objective case, than are _pronouns_. For example: "There is no more of moral principle in the way of _abolitionists nominating_ their own candidates, than in that of _their voting_ for those nominated by others."--GERRIT SMITH: _Liberator_, Vol. X, p. 17. Indeed, a pronoun of the nominative or the objective case is hardly ever used in such a relation, unless it be so obviously the leading word in sense, as to preclude all question about the construction.[423] And this fact seems to make it the more doubtful, whether it be proper to use nouns in that manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered the leading word in sense, we are at least under no _necessity_ of subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought desirable to vary the foregoing example, it may easily be done, thus: "There is no more of moral principle _to prevent abolitionists_ from nominating their own candidates, than _to prevent them from_ voting for those nominated by others." The following example is much like the preceding, but less justifiable: "We see comfort, security, strength, pleasure, wealth, and prosperity, all flowing from _men combining together_; and misery, weakness, and poverty, ensuing from _their acting separately_ or in opposition to each other."--_West's Letters_, p. 133. Say rather,--"from _men's combining-together_," or, "from _the just combination of men in society_;" and,--"from their _separate action_, or _their_ opposition to _one an other_." Take an other example: "If _illorum_ be governed here of _negotii_, it must be in this order, _gratia negotii illorum videndi_; and this is, for the sake of their _business_ being seen, and not, for the sake of _them_ being seen."--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, p. 352. Here the learned critic, in disputing Perizonius's resolution of the phrase, "_illorum videndi gratiâ_" has written disputable English. But, had he _affected the Latin idiom_, a nearer imitation of it would have been,--"for the sake of their _business's being seen_, and not for the sake of _their being seen_." Or nearer still,--"for the sake of _seeing of their business_, and not, for the sake of _seeing of them_." An elegant writer would be apt to avoid all these forms, and say,--"for the sake of _seeing their business_;" and,--"_for the sake of seeing them_;" though the former phrase, being but a version of bad Latin, makes no very good sense in any way.

OBS. 41.--Idioms, or peculiarities of expression, are never to be approved or valued, but according to their convenience, utility, or elegance. By this rule, some phrases that are not positively barbarous, may yet be ungrammatical, and a construction that is sometimes allowable, may yet be quite unworthy to be made or reckoned, "the common mode of expression." Thus, in Latin, the infinitive verb is occasionally put for a noun, and taken to signify a property possessed; as, "_Tuum scire_, [thy to know,] the same as _tua scientia_, thy knowledge. Pers."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 153. So, in English, the participle in _ing_ is often taken substantively, when it does not actually become a substantive or noun; as, "Thy _knowing_ this,"--"Our _doing_ so."--_West_. Such forms of speech, because they are idiomatical, seldom admit of any literal translation, and are never naturalized by any transfer from one language or dialect into an other; nor is it proper for grammarians to justify them, in vernacular speech, except as figures or anomalies that ought not to be generally imitated. It cannot be truly affirmed, that the genius of our language ever requires that participles, as such, should assume the relations of a noun, or govern the possessive case; nor, on the other hand, can it be truly denied, that very excellent and learned writers do sometimes make use of such phraseology. Without disrespect to the many users and approvers of these anomalies, I set down for bad English every mixed construction of the participle, for which the language can furnish an equivalent expression that is more simple and more elegant. The extent to which these comparative barbarisms now abound in English books, and the ridiculous fondness for them, which has been shown by some writers on English grammar, in stead of amounting to any argument in their favour, are in fact, plain proofs of the necessity of an endeavour to arrest so obvious and so pernicious an innovation.

OBS. 42.--A late author observes as follows: "That the English gerund, participle, or verbal noun, in _ing_, has both an active and a passive signification, there can be little doubt.[424] Whether the Latin gerund has precisely a similar import, or whether it is only active, it may be difficult, and, indeed, after all, it is not of much moment, to ascertain."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 234. The gerund in Latin most commonly governs the case of its own verb, as does the active participle, both in Latin and English: as, "Efferor studio _patres vestros videndi_. Cic. de sen. 23."--_Lily's Gram._, p. 96. That is, "I am transported, with a desire of _seeing your fathers_." But sometimes we find the gerund taken substantively and made to govern the genitive. Or,--to adopt the language of an old grammarian:--"Interdum _non invenustè_ additur gerundiis in _di_ etiam genitivus pluralis: ut, 'Quum _illorum videndi_ gratiâ me in forum contulissem.'--'_Novarum_ [qui] _spectandi_ faciunt copiam.' Ter. Heaut. prol. 29."--_Lily's Gram._, p. 97. That is, "To gerunds in _di_ there is sometimes _not inelegantly_ added a genitive plural: as, 'When, for the sake _of seeing of them_, I went into the forum.'--'Who present an opportunity of _attending of new ones_:' i.e., new comedies." Here the _of_ which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers do now and then adopt this idiom. The gerund thus governing the genitive, is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for _the subject_ of the being or action, but for what would otherwise be _the object_ of the gerund, or of the participle, as may be seen above. The objection to the participle as governing the possessive, is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed. R. Johnson, like many others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective, and has merely a preposition before it; as, "For the sake _of seeing them_. Where _seeing_ (says he) is a Substantive."--_Gram. Com._, p. 353.

OBS. 43.--If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the _agent_, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective. But I have before observed that no such analogy appears. The following example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the genitive of the agent: "_Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est_--Cic."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 236. That is, (as I understand it,) "But in _whose speaking_ something is reprehended." This seems to me a case in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so. But a single example is not sufficient. If the doctrine is true, there must be others. In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that _cujus_ is here governed by _aliquid_, and not by the gerund. "Here," says Grant, "I am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the liberty to use, 'That, _for the sake of euphony_, the gerund is sometimes found governing the genitive of the patient, or _subject_ [say _object_] of the action, is unquestionable: thus, _studio videndi patrum vestrorum_. [That is, literally, _By a desire of seeing of your fathers_.] But I recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the patient, but the agent; as, _dicendum meum, ejus dicendum, cujus dicendum_. [That is, _my speaking, his speaking, whose speaking_.] In truth, these phraseologies appear to me, not only repugnant to the idiom of the language, but also unfavourable to precision and perspicuity.'"--_Grant's Latin Gram._, 8vo, p. 236.

OBS. 44.--Of that particular distinction between the participle and the participial noun, which depends on the insertion or omission of the article and the preposition _of_, a recent grammarian of considerable merit adopts the following views: "This double nature of the participle has led to much irregularity in its use. Thus we find, 'indulging which,' 'indulging _of_ which,' '_the_ indulging which,' and '_the_ indulging _of_ which,' used indiscriminately. Lowth very properly instructs us, either to use both the article and the preposition with the participle; as, '_the_ indulging _of_ which:' or to reject both; as, 'indulging which:' thus keeping the verbal and substantive forms distinct. But he is wrong, as Dr. Crombie justly remarks, in considering these two modes of expression as perfectly similar. Suppose I am told, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had _in hearing_ Fawcet:' I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Bloomfield great pleasure. But were it said, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had _in the hearing of_ Fawcet:' I should be led to conclude merely that the orator was within hearing, when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt from something, about which I have no information. Accordingly Dr. Crombie suggests as a general rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing something, the article should be inserted before the participle, and the preposition after it; and, when the noun is passive, or represents the object of an action, both the article and the preposition should be omitted:[425] agreeably to the examples just adduced. It is true, that when the noun following the participle denotes something incapable of the action the participle expresses, no mistake can arise _from using_ either form: as, 'The middle condition seems to be the most advantageously situate for _the gaining of_ wisdom. Poverty turns our thoughts too much upon _the supplying of_ our wants; and riches, upon _enjoying_ our superfluities.' _Addison, Spect._, 464. Yet I cannot think it by any means a commendable practice, thus to jumble together different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as _the two modes of expression have different significations_, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr. Crombie's rule, even when no mistake could arise _from interchanging_ them."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 319.

OBS. 45.--The two modes of expression which these grammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, _are the same_ that Lindley Murray and his copyists suppose to be _generally equivalent_, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do "_not in every instance_ convey the same meaning." (See Obs. 27th above.) If Dr. Lowth considered them "as _perfectly similar_," he was undoubtedly very wrong in this matter: though not more so than these gentlemen, who resolve to interpret them as being perfectly and constantly dissimilar. Dr. Adam says, "There are, both in Latin and [in] English, substantives derived from the verb, which so much resemble the Gerund in their signification, that _frequently_ they may be substituted in its place. They are generally used, however, in a more undetermined sense than the Gerund, and in English, have the article _always_[426] prefixed to them. Thus, with the gerund, _Detector legendo Ciceronem_, I am delighted _with reading_ Cicero. But with the substantive, _Delector lectione Ciceronis_, I am delighted with _the reading of_ Cicero."--_Lat. and Eng. Gram._, p. 142. "Gerunds are so called because they, as it were, signify the thing _in gerendo_, (anciently written _gerundo_,) _in doing_; and, along with the action, convey an idea of the agent."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 70; _Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 353. "_The reading of Cicero_," does not necessarily signify an action of which Cicero is the _agent_, as Crombie, Churchill, and Hiley choose to expound it; and, since the gerundive construction of words in _ing_ ought to have a definite reference to the agent or subject of the action or being, one may perhaps amend even some of their own phraseology above, by preferring the participial noun: as, "No mistake can arise _from the using of_ either form."--"And riches [turn our thoughts too much] _upon the enjoying of_ our superfluities."--"Even when no mistake could arise _from the interchanging of_ them." Where the agent of the action plainly appears, the gerundive form is to be preferred on account of its brevity; as, "By _the_ observing _of_ truth, you will command respect;" or, "By _observing_ truth, &c."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 189. Here the latter phraseology is greatly preferable, though this author did not perceive it. "I thought nothing was to be done by me before _the giving of_ you thanks."--_Walker's Particles_, p. 63. Say,--"before _giving_ you thanks;" for otherwise the word _thanks_ has no proper construction, the pronoun alone being governed by _of_--and here again is an error; for "_you_" ought to be the object of _to_.

OBS. 46.--In Hiley's Treatise, a work far more comprehensive than the generality of grammars, "the _established principles_ and _best usages_ of the English" Participle are so adroitly summed up, as to occupy only two pages, one in Etymology, and an other in Syntax. The author shows how the participle differs from a verb, and how from an adjective; yet he neither makes it a separate part of speech, nor tells us with what other it ought to be included. In lieu of a general rule for the parsing of _all participles_, he presents the remark, "Active transitive participles, like their verbs, govern the objective case; as, 'I am desirous of _hearing him_;' '_Having praised them_, he sat down.'"--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 93. This is a rule by which one may parse the _few objectives_ which are governed by participles; but, for the usual construction of _participles themselves_, it is no rule at all; neither does the grammar, full as it is, contain any. "_Hearing_" is here governed by _of_, and "_Having praised_" relates to _he_; but this author teaches neither of these facts, and the former he expressly contradicts by his false definition of a preposition. In his first note, is exhibited, in two parts, the false and ill-written rule which Churchill quotes from Crombie. (1.) "When the noun, _connected with the participle_, is _active or doing_ something, the _participle must have_ an article before it, and the preposition _of_ after it; as, 'In _the hearing of_ the philosopher;' or, 'In the philosopher's _hearing_;' 'By _the preaching of_ Christ;' or, 'By Christ's _preaching_.' In these instances," says Hiley, "the words _hearing_ and _preaching_ are _substantives_." If so, he ought to have corrected this rule, which twice calls them _participles_; but, in stead of doing that, he blindly adds, by way of alternative, two examples which expressly contradict what the rule asserts. (2.) "But when the noun represents the _object_ of an _action_, the article and the preposition _of_ must be _omitted_; as, 'In _hearing_ the philosopher.'"--_Ib._, p. 94. If this principle is right, my second note below, and most of the corrections under it, are wrong. But 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_."