OBS. 9.--The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: "But experience teacheth us, _both these opinions to be_ alike ridiculous."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, "But experience _teaches us, that both these opinions are_ alike ridiculous."

The verbs _believe, think, imagine_, and others expressing _mental action_, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: "RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] 'I _believe_ your _brother to be_ a good man.' Here _believe_ does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. _Brother_, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb _to be_, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular."--_S. Barrett's Gram._, p. 135.

This author teaches that, "The _infinitive mode agrees_ with the objective case in number and person."--_Ibid._ Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun _brother_, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb _believe_, and the subject of the neuter infinitive _to be_, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.

OBS. 10.--There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: "The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, 'Suffer _me_ to depart.'" [340]--_English Parser_, p. 34. "When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as 'I understood _it_ to be him,' 'Suffer _me_ to depart,' such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, _the subject_ of it. The reason of this is--the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive following, and not governed by the former verb; as, in that instance, it _would be governing_ two objects."--_Ib., Note._[341]

OBS. 11.--The notion that one verb governs an other in the infinitive, just as a transitive verb governs a noun, and so that it cannot also govern an objective case, is not only contradictory to my scheme of parsing the infinitive mood, but is also false in itself, and repugnant to the principles of General Grammar. In Greek and Latin, it is certainly no uncommon thing for a verb to govern two cases at once; and even the accusative before the infinitive is sometimes governed by the preceding verb, as the objective before the infinitive naturally is in English. But, in regard to construction, every language differs more or less from every other; hence each must have its own syntax, and abide by its own rules. In regard to the point here in question, the reader may compare the following examples: "[Greek: Echo anagkaen exelthein]."--_Luke_, xiv, 18. "Habeo necesse exire."--_Leusden_. English: "I have _occasion to go_ away." Again: "[Greek: O echon hota akouein, akoueto]."--_Luke_, xiv, 35. "Habens aures audiendi, audiat."--_Leusden_. "Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat."--_Beza_. English: "He that hath _ears to hear_, let _him hear_."

But our most frequent use of the infinitive after the objective, is in sentences that must not be similarly constructed in Latin or Greek;[342]

as, "And he commanded the _porter to watch_."--_Mark_, xiii, 34. "And he delivered _Jesus to be crucified_."--_Mark_, xv, 15. "And they led _him_ out _to crucify him_."--_Mark_, xv, 20. "We heard _him say_."--_Mark_, xiv, 58. "That I might make _thee know_."--_Prov._, xxii, 21.

OBS. 12.--If our language does really admit any thing like the accusative before the infinitive, in the sense of a positive subject at the head of a clause, it is only in some prospective descriptions like the following: "Let certain studies be prescribed to be pursued during the freshman year; _some_ of these to be attended to by the whole class; with regard to others, a _choice_ to be allowed; _which_, when made by the student, (the parent or guardian sanctioning it,) to be binding during the freshman year: the same _plan_ to be adopted with regard to the studies of the succeeding years."--GALLAUDET: _Journal of the N. Y. Literary Convention_, p. 118.

Here the four words, _some, choice, which_, and _plan_, may appear to a Latinist to be so many objectives, or accusatives, placed before infinitives, and used to describe that state of things which the author would promote. If objectives they are, we may still suppose them to be governed by _let, would have_, or something of the kind, understood: as, "_Let_ some of these be attended to;" or, "Some of these _I would have_ to be attended to," &c. The relative _which_ might with more propriety be made nominative, by changing "_to_ be binding" to "_shall_ be binding;" and as to the rest, it is very doubtful whether they are not now nominatives, rather than objectives. The infinitive, as used above, is a mere substitute for the Latin future participle; and any English noun or pronoun put absolute with a participle, is in the nominative case. English relatives are rarely, if ever, put absolute in this manner: and this may be the reason why the construction of _which_, in the sentence above, seems awkward. Besides, it is certain that the other pronouns are sometimes put absolute with the infinitive; and that, in the nominative case, not the objective: as,

"And _I to be_ a corporal in his field, And wear his colours like a tumbler's hoop!

What? _I! I love! I sue! I seek_ a wife!"--_Shak., Love's Labour Lost_.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE II.

THE SUBJECT OF A FINITE VERB.

"The whole need not a physician, but them that are sick."--_Bunyan's Law and Gr._, p. iv.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the objective pronoun _them_ is here made the subject of the verb _need_, understood. But, according to Rule 2d, "A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case." Therefore, _them_ should be _they_; thus, "The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."]

"He will in no wise cast out whomsoever cometh unto him."--_Robert Hall_ "He feared the enemy might fall upon his men, whom he saw were off their guard."--_Hutchinson's Massachusetts_, ii, 133. "Whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."--_Dymond's Essays_, p. 48. "The idea's of the author have been conversant with the faults of other writers."--_Swift's T. T._, p. 55. "You are a much greater loser than me by his death."--_Swift to Pope_, l. 63. "Such peccadillo's pass with him for pious frauds."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 279. "In whom I am nearly concerned, and whom I know would be very apt to justify my whole procedure."--_Ib._, i, 560. "Do not think such a man as me contemptible for my garb."--_Addison._ "His wealth and him bid adieu to each other."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 107. "So that, 'He is greater than _me_,'

will be more grammatical than, 'He is greater than _I_.'"--_Ib._, p. 106.

"The Jesuits had more interests at court than him."--SMOLLETT: in _Pr.

Gram._, p. 106.[343] "Tell the Cardinal that I understand poetry better than him."--_Id., ib._ "An inhabitant of Crim Tartary was far more happy than him."--_Id., ib._ "My father and him have been very intimate since."--_Fair American_, ii, 53. "Who was the agent, and whom the object struck or kissed?"--_Infant School Gram._, p. 32. "To find the person whom he imagined was concealed there."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 225. "He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him."--HUME: in _Pr.

Gram._, p. 104. "They would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might exercise the right of judgement."--_Gov. Haynes's Speech_, in 1832. "They had promised to accept whomsoever should be born in Wales."--_Stories by Croker_. "We sorrow not as them that have no hope."--_Maturin's Sermons_, p. 27. "If he suffers, he suffers as them that have no hope."--_Ib._, p. 32. "We acknowledge that he, and him only, hath been our peacemaker."--_Gratton_. "And what can be better than him that made it?"--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 329. "None of his school-fellows is more beloved than him."--_Cooper's Gram._, p. 42. "Solomon, who was wiser than them all."--_Watson's Apology_, p. 76. "Those whom the Jews thought were the last to be saved, first entered the kingdom of God."--_Eleventh Hour, Tract_, No. 4. "A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both."--_Prov._, xxvii, 3. "A man of business, in good company, is hardly more insupportable than her they call a notable woman."--_Steele, Sped_. "The king of the Sarmatians, whom we may imagine was no small prince, restored him a hundred thousand Roman prisoners."--_Life of Antoninus_, p. 83. "Such notions would be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as them."--_Bolingbroke's Ph. Tr._, p. 24. "Unless, as I said, Messieurs, you are the masters, and not me."--BASIL HALL: _Harrison's E. Lang._, p. 173.

"We had drawn up against peaceable travellers, who must have been as glad as us to escape."--BURNES'S TRAVELS: _ibid._ "Stimulated, in turn, by their approbation, and that of better judges than them, she turned to their literature with redoubled energy."--QUARTERLY REVIEW: _Life of H. More: ibid._ "I know not whom else are expected."--SCOTT'S PIRATE: _ibid._ "He is great, but truth is greater than us all."--_Horace Mann, in Congress_, 1850. "Him I accuse has entered."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, --482: see _Shakspeare's Coriolanus_, Act V, sc. 5.

"Scotland and thee did each in other live."

--_Dryden's Po._, Vol. ii, p. 220.

"We are alone; here's none but thee and I."

--_Shak._, 2 Hen. VI.

"Me rather had, my heart might feel your love, Than my unpleas'd eye see your courtesy."

--_Idem: Joh. Dict._

"Tell me, in sadness, whom is she you love?"

--_Id., Romeo and Juliet_, A. I, sc. 1.

"Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire Too high a fame, when him we serve's away."

--_Shak., Ant. and Cleop._

RULE III.--APPOSITION.

A Noun or a personal Pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case: as, "But it is really _I_, your old _friend and neighbour., Piso_, late a _dweller_ upon the Coelian hill, who am now basking in the warm skies of Palmyra."--_Zenobia._

"But _he_, our gracious _Master_, kind as just, Knowing our frame, remembers we are dust."--_Barbauld_.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE III.

OBS. 1--_Apposition_ is that peculiar relation which one noun or pronoun bears to an other, when two or more are placed together in the same case, and used to designate the same person or thing: as, "_Cicero_ the _orator_;"--"The _prophet Joel_;"--"_He_ of Gath, _Goliah_;"--"Which _ye yourselves_ do know;"--"To make _him king_;"--"To give his _life_ a _ransom_ for many;"--"I made the _ground_ my _bed_;"--"_I_, thy _schoolmaster_;"--"_We_ the _People_ of the United States." This placing-together of nouns and pronouns in the same case, was reckoned by the old grammarians a _figure of syntax_; and from them it received, in their elaborate detail of the grammatical and rhetorical figures, its present name of _apposition_. They reckoned it a species of _ellipsis_, and supplied between the words, the participle _being_, the infinitive _to be_, or some other part of their "_substantive verb_:" as, "Cicero _being_ the orator;"--"To make him _to be_ king;"--"I _who am_ thy schoolmaster." But the later Latin grammarians have usually placed it among their regular concords; some calling it the first concord, while others make it the last, in the series; and some, with no great regard to consistency, treating it both as a figure and as a regular concord, at the same time.

OBS. 2.--Some English grammarians teach, "that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb _to be_, may be said to be _in apposition_ to each other."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 181; _R. C. Smith's_, 155; _Fisk's_, 126; _Ingersoll's_, 146; _Merchant's_, 91. But this is entirely repugnant to the doctrine, that apposition is a _figure_; nor is it at all consistent with the original meaning of the word _apposition_; because it assumes that the literal reading, when the supposed ellipsis is supplied, is _apposition_ still. The old distinction, however, between apposition and same cases, is _generally_ preserved in our grammars, and is worthy ever to be so. The rule for _same cases_ applies to all nouns or pronouns that are put after verbs or participles not transitive, and that are made to agree in case with other nouns or pronouns going before, and meaning the same thing. But some teachers who observe this distinction with reference to the neuter verb _be_, and to certain passive verbs of _naming, appointing_, and the like, absurdly break it down in relation to other verbs, neuter or active-intransitive. Thus Nixon: "Nouns in apposition are in the same case; as, '_Hortensius_ died a _martyr_;' '_Sydney_ lived the shepherd's _friend_.'"--_English Parser_, p. 55. It is remarkable that _all_ this author's examples of "_nominatives in apposition_," (and he gives eighteen in the exercise,) are precisely of this sort, in which there is really _no apposition at all_.

OBS. 3.--In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the _explanatory term_; because the case of the _principal term_ depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule.

In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which _might_ be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation. Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, _William Pitt--Marcus Tullius Cicero_. It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, _Lord Bacon--Sir Isaac Newton_. William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of "_George Washington_," absurdly take the former word as an _adjective_ belonging to the latter. See _Russell's Gram._, p. 100; and _Ware's_, 17. R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names. See his _New Gram._, p. 97. And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, "_John Wickliffe's influence_," "_Robert Bruce's exertions_,"

and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives _in apposition_ with the former. See _Nixon's English Parser_, p. 59. Wm. B. Fowle, in his "True English Grammar," takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives. According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language. A later writer than any of these says, "The proper noun is _philosophically_ an adjective. Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, _may be parsed as adjectives_, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, _President_ Madison,--_Doctor_ Johnson,--_Mr_. Webster,--_Esq_. Carleton,--_Miss_ Gould,--_Professor_ Ware,--_lake_ Erie,--the _Pacific_ ocean,--_Franklin_ House,--_Union_ street."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 134. I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a _man's name_ in parsing it.

A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately: for example, that wonderful doctor, _Paracelsus_, who called himself, "_Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim_."--_Univ. Biog. Dict._

OBS. 4.--A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: "Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 156.

The same has also been applied to our language: "Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of _pronouns_ seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes "signify" or "denote" the same thing. Thus, "_the city of London_," means only _the city London_; "_the land of Egypt_," is only Egypt; and "_the person of Richard_" is _Richard himself_. Dr. Webster defines _apposition_ to be, "The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them."--_Octavo Dict._ This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, "_Ezra_ the _priest_, the _scribe_ of the law."--_Ezra_, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, "God hath made that same _Jesus_, whom ye have crucified, both _Lord_ and _Christ_."--_Acts_, ii, 36. "Who made _me_ a _judge_ or a _divider_ over you."--_Luke_, xii, 14. Thirdly, the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by _and_, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, "This great _philosopher and statesman_ was bred a printer." Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by _as_, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, "Yet count _him_ not _as_ an _enemy_, but admonish _him as_ a _brother_."--_2 Thess._, iii, 15. "So that _he, as God_, sitteth in the temple of God."--_Ib._, ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by _than_; as, "He left _them_ no more _than_ dead _men_."--_Law and Grace_, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by _or_; as, "The back of the hedgehog is covered with _prickles, or spines_."--_Webster's Dict._

OBS. 5.--To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly _no exceptions_. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,

"From bright'ning fields of ether fair disclos'd, _Child_ of the sun, refulgent _Summer_ comes."--_Thomson_.

OBS. 6.--The pronouns of the _first_ and _second_ persons are often placed before nouns merely to distinguish their person; as, "_I John_ saw these things."--_Bible_. "But what is this to _you receivers?_"--_Clarkson's Essay on Slavery_, p. 108. "His praise, _ye brooks_, attune."--_Thomson_.

In this case of apposition, the words are in general closely united, and either of them may be taken as the explanatory term. The learner will find it easier to parse _the noun_ by rule third; or _both nouns_, if there be two: as, "_I_ thy _father-in-law Jethro_ am come unto thee."--_Exod._, xviii, 6. There are many other examples, in which it is of no moment, which of the terms we take for the principal; and to all such the rule may be applied literally: as, "Thy _son Benhadad king_ of Syria hath sent me to thee."--_2 Kings_, viii, 9.

OBS. 7.--When two or more nouns of the _possessive case_ are put in apposition, the possessive termination added to one, denotes the case of both or all; as, "For _Herodias_' sake, his _brother Philip's wife_"--_Matt._, xiv, 3; Mark, vi, 17. Here _wife_ is in apposition with _Herodias_', and _brother_ with _Philip's_; consequently all these words are reckoned to be in the possessive case. The Greek text, which is better, stands essentially thus: "For the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother." "For _Jacob_ my _servant's_ sake, and _Israel_ mine _elect_."--_Isaiah_, xlv, 4. Here, as _Jacob_ and _Israel_ are only different names for the same person or nation, the four nouns in Italics are, according to the rule, all made possessives by the one sign used; but the construction is not to be commended: it would be better to say, "For _the_ sake _of_ Jacob my servant, and Israel mine elect." "With _Hyrcanus_ the high _priest's_ consent."--_Wood's Dict., w. Herod_. "I called at _Smith's_, the _bookseller_; or, at _Smith_ the _bookseller's_."-- _Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 105. Two words, each having the possessive sign, can never be in apposition one with the other; because that sign has immediate reference to the governing noun expressed or understood after it; and if it be repeated, separate governing nouns will be implied, and the apposition will be destroyed.[344]

OBS. 8.--If the foregoing remark is just, the apposition of two nouns in the possessive case, requires the possessive sign to be added to that noun which immediately precedes the governing word, whether expressed or understood, and positively excludes it from the other. The sign of the case is added, sometimes to the former, and sometimes to the latter noun, but never to both: or, if added to both, the two words are no longer in apposition. Example: "And for that reason they ascribe to him a great part of his _father Nimrod's_, or _Belus's_ actions."--_Rollin's An. Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 6. Here _father_ and _Nimrod's_ are in strict apposition; but if _actions_ governs _Belus's_, the same word is implied to govern _Nimrod's_, and the two names are not in apposition, though they are in the same case and mean the same person.

OBS. 9.--Dr. Priestley says, "Some would say, 'I left the parcel at _Mr.

Smith's_, the _bookseller_;' others, 'at _Mr. Smith_ the _bookseller's_;'

and perhaps others, at '_Mr. Smith's_ the _bookseller's_.' The last of these forms is most agreeable to the Latin idiom, but the first seems to be more natural in ours; and if the addition consist [_consists_, says Murray,] of two or more words, _the case seems to be very clear_; as, 'I left the parcel at _Mr. Smith's_ the _bookseller_ and _stationer_;' i. e.

at Mr. Smith's, _who is a_ bookseller and stationer."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 70. Here the examples, if rightly pointed, _would all be right_; but the ellipsis supposed, not only destroys the apposition, but converts the explanatory noun into a nominative. And in the phrase, "_at Mr. Smiths, the bookseller's_," there is no apposition, except that of _Mr_. with _Smith's_; for the governing noun _house_ or _store_ is understood as clearly after the one possessive sign as after the other. Churchill imagines that in Murray's example, "I reside at _Lord Stormont's_, my old _patron_ and _benefactor_," the last two nouns are in the nominative after "_who was_" understood; and also erroneously suggests, that their joint apposition with _Stormont's_ might be secured, by saying, less elegantly, "I reside at Lord _Stormont's_, my old patron and _benefactor's_."-- _Churchill's New Gram._, p. 285. Lindley Murray, who tacitly takes from Priestley all that is quoted above, except the term "_Mr._," and the notion of an ellipsis of "_who is_," assumes each of the three forms as an instance of apposition, but pronounces the first only to be "correct and proper." If, then, the first is elliptical, as Priestley suggests, and the others are ungrammatical, as Murray pretends to prove, we cannot have in reality any such construction as the apposition of two possessives; for the sign of the case cannot possibly be added in more than these three ways.

But Murray does not adhere at all to his own decision, as may be seen by his subsequent remarks and examples, on the same page; as, "The _emperor Leopold's_;"--"_Dionysius_ the _tyrant's_;"--"For _David_ my _servant's_ sake;"--"Give me here _John_ the _Baptist's_ head;"--"_Paul_ the _apostle's_ advice." See _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 176; _Smith's New Gram._, p. 150; and others.

OBS. 10.--An explanatory noun without the possessive sign, seems sometimes to be put in apposition with a _pronoun of the possessive case_; and, if introduced by the conjunction _as_, it may either precede or follow the pronoun: thus, "I rejoice in _your_ success _as_ an _instructer_."-- _Sanborn's Gram._, p. 244. "_As_ an _author_, his 'Adventurer' is _his_ capital work."--_Murray's Sequel_, p. 329.

"Thus shall mankind _his_ guardian care engage, The promised _father_ of a future age."--_Pope_.

But possibly such examples may be otherwise explained on the principle of ellipsis; as, [_He being_] "the promised _father_," &c. "As [_he was_] an _author_," &c. "As [_you are_] an _instructer_."

OBS. 11.--When a noun or pronoun _is repeated_ for the sake of emphasis, or for the adding of an epithet, the word which is repeated may properly be said to be in apposition with that which is first introduced; or, if not, the repetition itself implies sameness of case: as, "They have forsaken _me_, the _fountain_ of living waters, and hewed them out _cisterns_, broken _cisterns_, that can hold no water."--_Jer._, ii, 13.

"I find the total of their hopes and fears _Dreams_, empty _dreams_."--_Cowper's Task_, p. 71.

OBS. 12.--A noun is sometimes put, as it were, in apposition to a _sentence_; being used (perhaps elliptically) to sum up the whole idea in one emphatic word, or short phrase. But, in such instances, the noun can seldom be said to have any positive relation that may determine its case; and, if alone, it will of course be in the nominative, by reason of its independence. Examples: "He permitted me to consult his library--a _kindness_ which I shall not forget."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 148. "I have offended reputation--a most unnoble _swerving_."--_Shakspeare_. "I want a hero,--an uncommon _want_."--_Byron_. "Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself; a _discovery_ which the poet probably never made before."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 280.