7. "Who do you think him to be ?" "Whom do men say that I am ?" The remarks in 5 and 6, and a little more consideration, will prove these expressions incorrect. The him in the first, governed by think in the objective, requires whom, not who; whilst the I in the second, the subject of am, being nominative, requires who, not whom. The latter expression, in order to retain whom, should run thus-" Whom do men say me to be;" which, though harsh to the ear, is correct grammar, according to classical usage. 8. "Alfred was regarded a public benefactor;" "Alfred was regarded as a public benefactor." Both are correct; the latter probably more, according to present usage. In the first, we have literally the construction of apposition; the latter sentence, and all such, may be regarded as elliptical; a verb out of the preceding clause being understood as the predicate of the noun which succeeds as: thus"Alfred was regarded as a public benefactor (is regarded)."

RULE VII.-ON THE INFINITIVE MOOD.

One verb governs another in the infinitive mood; as, "Boys love to play;" "He was desired to leave;" wherein to play, to leave, are infinitives, depending on the verbs love, desired, respectively. In the case of the first example, and all such, the infinitive is clearly the object of the transitive verb. (See Observation 2, Rule II.)

OBSERVATIONS ON THE INFINITIVE MOOD.

1. This general rule asserts the principle, that when the infinitive mood is in a state of government, that is, when it is neither the subject or part thereof, nor the object of a verb or preposition; it is merely the complement of some other verb, on which it is said to depend. "He wishes," for instance, gives no idea as to the object of his wishes: to make the idea complete, the infinitive is necessary, and we accordingly say, " He wishes to write, to come, to play," &c. &c.

such verbs in every instance being another name for the subject thereof, and the verb itself serving as a copula whereby the two names are linked together. The rule, therefore, laid down under the head Apposition, is virtually identical with the rule on the verb To be; the only difference, as recognised by grammarians, between them consisting in the fact, that where the copula is used, the construction is not called, though it really is, the construction of apposition.

3. From the remarks under the head Apposition, and from Observations 20. 25, under Rule I., it will be clearly seen, that though the nouns following the verb to be must agree in case with the nouns preceding it, yet they may be in different numbers.

4. The verb To be, &c. &c., as well as a noun or pronoun, takes after it also an adjective agreeing with or qualifying the subject; as- "The sun was high in the heavens;' "Few and evil are the days of my pilgrimage."

5. "He said it was he;" "He believed it to be him." These are both correct: he, in the first sentence, follows was in the nominative, because it in the nominative precedes it; him, in the second, follows to be in the objective, because it, supposed to be the objective governed by believed, precedes it. The classical scholar would probably account for the latter construction by regarding it as the subject of the verb to be; and therefore in the accusative case, from which the him would naturally follow in the accusative too.

6. "It is him we blame;" "It is he we blame." Which is correct? Before answering this question, an analysis of the expressions is necessary; the fact is, they both originate in an attempt to amalgamate two distinct propositions into one. The propositions would be-"It is he whom we blame." The question now arises, whether it is right to suppress he, the predicate of the proposition, or whom, the objective construction of the other; and the answer would naturally be-" Principle cannot determine,” but usage does, and suppresses whom; but, as a kind of equivalent for such suppression, and probably more on account of the vicinity of the transitive verb blame, the he is changed into him.

7. "Who do you think him to be ?" "Whom do men say that I am ?" The remarks in 5 and 6, and a little more consideration, will prove these expressions incorrect. The him in the first, governed by think in the objective, requires whom, not who; whilst the I in the second, the subject of am, being nominative, requires who, not whom. The latter expression, in order to retain whom, should run thus-" Whom do men say me to be;" which, though harsh to the ear, is correct grammar, according to classical usage. 8. "Alfred was regarded a public benefactor;" "Alfred was regarded as a public benefactor." Both are correct; the latter probably more, according to present usage. In the first, we have literally the construction of apposition; the latter sentence, and all such, may be regarded as elliptical; a verb out of the preceding clause being understood as the predicate of the noun which succeeds as: thus"Alfred was regarded as a public benefactor (is regarded)."

66

RULE VII.-ON THE INFINITIVE MOOD.

One verb governs another in the infinitive mood; as, Boys love to play;" "He was desired to leave;" wherein to play, to leave, are infinitives, depending on the verbs love, desired, respectively. In the case of the first example, and all such, the infinitive is clearly the object of the transitive verb. (See Observation 2, Rule II.)

OBSERVATIONS ON THE INFINITIVE MOOD.

1. This general rule asserts the principle, that when the infinitive mood is in a state of government, that is, when it is neither the subject or part thereof, nor the object of a verb or preposition; it is merely the complement of some other verb, on which it is said to depend. "He wishes," for instance, gives no idea as to the object of his wishes: to make the idea complete, the infinitive is necessary, and we accordingly say, "He wishes to write, to come, to play," &c. &c.

2. Instead of the infinitive complement expressing a purpose, the conjunctive that, with a subject and some part of the supplemental verb, may be substituted: thus-"He wishes that he may play" ="To play."

3. The infinitive mood is joined as a complement or supplementary expression to participles, adjectives, and nouns, as well as to verbs: thus-"They engaging to do it;" "Ready to comply:" "My inclination to refuse is strong." In the latter example, and similar ones, the infinitive mood is equal to a noun in apposition with the noun on which it is said to depend.

4. The infinitive used objectively follows verbs expressing feelings, powers, operations, &c. &c., of the mind: thus-"I desire to read;" "I undertake to be present;" "I exhort you to go."

5. There is a twofold construction of the infinitive mood, of which the following are examples :"I desire to read;" "I desire you to read;" from which it appears, that when the simple infinitive follows some verbs, the subject of them is the same as the subject of the verbs themselves. Thus, in the first example, to read and desire have the same subject: it is different in the second example, wherein the two verbs have different subjects.

6. When the infinitive is used objectively, it is frequently placed as the object of the governing verb, and the infinitive in apposition therewith: as, "I thought it useless to make the experiment."

7. It will have been seen that the particle to precedes the infinitive mood: this particle, which is called the sign of the infinitive, is omitted in the case of the verbs, bid, do, dare, feel, hear, make, need, see, observe, and some others: thus we say, "I saw him do it," instead of "I saw him to do it," "We heard him say it." Dare sometimes takes after it the sign of the infinitive, sometimes omits it: in the former case it signifies defiance; in the latter, the act of venturing. Thus-" He dared me to speak :" "We dare not go home."

These idiomatic

8. "I am to blame;" "I am to speak." phrases, and such as they, are not explainable on the principle of the government of one verb over another in the infinitive mood; but rather on the principle of the ellipsis.

In the first example, liable may be supplied; and to blame, if an infinitive mood, depends thereon as the active for the passive-a substitution frequently occurring in the classical languages: if blame be a noun, it of course is governed by the preposition to.

RULE VIII.-ON THE RELATIVE AND OTHER

PRONOUNS.

When no nominative intervenes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the subject of the verb; otherwise the case of the relative depends on the governing word in its own clause: as- “The men who arrived yesterday will depart to-morrow;" "He whose life is well spent, does not fear death." In the former example, who is the subject of arrived, no nominative intervening; in the second, life, a nominative, intervenes between whose and spent; whose, therefore, is not the nominative, and the case thereof is determined by its position in the sentence: in the present instance it is possessive, as governed by the noun life.

NOTE. The fact of a nominative intervening between the relative and the verb, has nothing whatever, as a cause, to do with the government of the relative. The present rule is comparatively unnecessary, for the following rea

sons:

1st. If it be the subject of a verb, all that is necessary has been said about it under Rule I.

2nd. If it be the objective case, its government is comprehended in the observations under Rule II.

3rd. If it be the possessive case, its government is comprehended in the observations under Rule IV.

These reasons hold good because the pronoun, whether relative or otherwise, is governed in like manner as the noun which it represents.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELATIVE AND OTHER

PRONOUNS.

1. The relative, when in the objective case, is, in very many instances, suppressed: thus-"The house I lived in;" that is, "The house in which I lived.”—“I saw the