Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a

the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done. (2.) The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It

may

also be modal; as, 'I strike the enemy with the sword. The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal; as, ‘I walk with the stick.' (3.) The modal construction may also be called the adverbial construction ; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of the adverb: thus — I fight with bravery' ='I fight bravely. The modal or adverbial construction sometimes takes the appearance of the objective, inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive: thus— * To sleep the sleep of the righteous.' Here, nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object; which is not the case here. The sentence means, 'To sleep as the righteous sleep;' or, according to the sleep of the righteous."

11. The modal construction, as Latham calls it, does not explain the government of the objective by of. The fact is, of, with the noun following it, are both taken together as an equivalent for the Latin and Greek genitive: thus“The queen of England”="England's queen.” In the

" former instance, however, England is not called the possessive, but the objective case governed by the preposition of.

12. A preposition is frequently understood before the noun governed by it: thus—“He is forty years old,years being governed by the preposition by understood ; “He slept all the day,” wherein day is governed by the preposition through, not during, as will be shown in discussing the case absolute.

NOTE.—Some adjectives appear to take after them an objective case ;

of these are the words like, near, nigh, nearest, opposite : as in the expression, “She sat opposite me," where me is governed by to understood.

13. A preposition, in composition, governs the same case that it governs when not in composition; as, “He understood my discourse ;“ They underwent a hard fate.In the latter example, the under is used literally, in the former figuratively (or, indeed, both may be regarded as figuratively

:

a

66

used); the standing under a discourse, giving the idea of close contact therewith, and a consequent feeling of the weight thereof.

NOTE.-In such cases, the verb has all the force of the transitive verb, which is imparted to it by the amalgamation of the preposition therewith.

14. Several words require after them appropriate prepositions or other particles; and care must be taken, if there be two or more such words used in a sentence, to place after each its appropriate preposition. Introduced requires to or into; expelled requires from. It would be incorrect to say, "He was first introduced, and subsequently expelled from the house :" it should be, “He was first introduced into, and subsequently expelled from the house." Inconsistent requires with ; opposed requires to. It would be highly inelegant to write, “ He acted in a manner inconsistent, and opposed to the usage of good society :" it should be,“ He acted in a manner inconsistent with, and opposed to the usage of good society.” Prejudice requires after it, against or towards ; hatred requires of. It would be ungrammatical to say, “He was actuated by fierce prejudice, and great hatred of his partner :" it should be, “He was actuated by fierce prejudice against, and great hatred of his partner.”

NOTE.—The word hatred may take after it towards : the sentence, therefore, may be thus' constructed, “Prejudice and hatred towards ;" but as prejudice does not take of after it, if of be used after hatred, against or towards must be used after prejudice.

Cobbett says that he had, when he wrote his Letters on Grammar, forty-eight errors, lying on the table before him, in the use or omission of prepositions, by Dr. Watts. Of these he gives the following amongst others :

“ When we would prove the importance of any Seriptural doctrine or duty, the multitude of texts wherein it is repeated and inculcated upon the reader, seems naturally to instruct us,” &c. &c.

In the foregoing expression, Cobbett intimates that repeated should have to after it; as we cannot say, it is repeated upon the reader. It is a fact that we cannot use the latter expression; but not a fact that repeated requires

[ocr errors]

a

any particle after it, being capable of being used absolutely or generally, that is, without any limitation as to the indi. viduals to whom or for whom the repetition is made.

RULE III.-ON APPOSITION.

[ocr errors]

When nouns

or pronouns are employed in the same clause as names for the same individual or object, they agree in case with the word which is the name for that individual or object. Thus — “Miltiades, the Athenian general, who defeated the Persians at Marathon, was afterwards thrown into prison.” Here Miltiades is the subject of was thrown, and, consequently, in the nominative case : general is another noun, standing for and explaining Miltiades ; it is, therefore, in the nominative case. ;

Nouns so used are said, technically, to be in apposition, from ad=to or near, and positus=placed, as they are never separated far from each other.

NOTE.—The nominative and objective of a noun being the same in form, and the principle of apposition being seldom, if ever, resorted to in the use of the possessive, this rule is of little practical utility except when it is necessary to employ a pronoun as a substitute for the noun; then the question of case necessarily arises, as in the expressionMiltiades, he who fought at Marathon, was afterwards thrown into prison :" here Miltiades is in the nominative case, and he, which is supplemental thereto, is likewise nominative. In the expression, "The Greeks cast into prison Miltiades, him who fought at Marathon :" Miltiades is the object of the transitive verb cast, and necessarily in the objective case; him is supplemental thereto, and therefore in the objective. It should further be remarked, that a noun may be placed in apposition, not with any individual noun foregoing, but with a whole clause ; or rather the noun in such cases stands, by way of summing up, as a name for some fact or circumstance involved in the clause. Thus—“ The Commons rejected the

bill, a circumstance which redounds much to their credit :" here circumstance is in apposition with the idea conveyed in the preceding clause ; that is, the act of rejection. In such instances as this, the question of case evidently is of no importance.

The construction of apposition evidently depends on, and is explainable by, the principle of ellipsis. The love of brevity more or less operates in moulding the form of all our sentences; and is at work here too—“Miltiades, the Athenian general," being equivalent to“ Miltiades, who was an Athenian general;" from which it would appear that the word in apposition is, grammatically speaking, a part of the predicate of a relative clause.

It should further be remarked, under this head, that, in order to use the construction of apposition, there must be no connecting link between the noun or pronoun in apposition and that which it explains. In the expression, “ Miltiades was an Athenian general ;Miltiades and general are names for the same individual; further, they are in the same case, the nominative, but not because they represent the same person, but because one is the subject of a verb which, it will be seen hereafter, requires after it the same case which precedes it.

This latter remark is practically useless, except when the words are to be parsed ; that is, we say general is in the nominative case, not because it is in apposition with Miltiades, but because it follows the verb was. As a matter of principle, however, it will be shown hereafter, that the construction by apposition gives birth to the rule regarding the government of the verb To be.

The word or words in apposition do not convey an additional idea to that conveyed by the word with which they are in apposition, but rather explain some circumstance concerning it; hence, no matter how many nouns may be placed in apposition with another, should that other be a subject, the question of the number of its verb is decided by its own number, and not by that of the noun or nouns in apposition. Thus, in the expression, “ Ambition, the animating principle and ruin of some men, serves many a useful purpose,” ambition is the subject; and though there are two nouns succeeding in apposition therewith,

the verb is yet expressed in the singular, because ambition is singular. The same observation holds good even in the case of nouns in the plural, placed in apposition with a singular subject. Thus—“The fruit of his labour-wealth which he amassed, and possessions which he acquired—was now unjustly confiscated:” in which expression the verb is properly singular, because its subject, fruit, is singular ; the succeeding nouns, wealth and possessions, the latter in the plural number, having no influence in determining the number of the verb.

ON THE POSSESSIVE CASE.

[ocr errors]

a

It has been seen in the foregoing Rules, that verbs and prepositions govern nouns in the objective case. By government, of course, will be understood that influence which one word of a particular sort exercises on another in causing it to assume a particular form, that is, to be expressed in a particular case. “ As the particular case, says Latham, “in which a word stands, depends upon the words that are taken along with it, the word government is not ill chosen as the name for the dependence of one word upon

another.” From the remarks on Apposition, it will be seen that one noun exercises a quasi government on another, causing it to be put in the same case with itself; and that this construction occurs when the two nouns, the governing and governed words, are different names for the same person or thing. It remains, now, to enunciate further the grammatical principle, which we shall call our fourth general rule, viz., —

RULE IV.

One noun governs another, when that other signifies a different thing, in the possessive case: as—“The queen's throne;" in which expression, the word queen's is in the possessive case, and is said to be governed by the word throne, which it explains, and with which it stands immediately connected. It is further to be remarked, that this

« PreviousContinue »