« PreviousContinue »
7. “ Who do
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, 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.
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
to 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."
8. “I am to blame;" “ I am to speak." These idiomatic 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
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
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
man you spoke of;" that is, “I saw the man of whom you spoke.”_" The horses I bought are dead;" that is, “The
”horses which I bought, are dead.” “The life he spent was a bad one;" that is, “The life which he spent was a bad one."
2. The relative sometimes has respect not to a noun as antecedent, but to some other word, frequently a pronominal adjective; in which case the concord of the relative is determined by the sense: thus—“In the same year was published my Inquiry, which, in my own opinion, who ought not to judge on that subject, is, of all my writings, incomparably the best.”—Hume.
“For my own part, who must confess it to my shame, that I never read anything but for pleasure.”—Dryden.
“ In the general warfare of the age, the advantage was on their side who were most commonly the assailants.”Gibbon.
NOTE. The classical scholar is not to be reminded that this is a principle so universally acknowledged as to be embodied in a distinct rule in the Latin grammars. The following is an example thereof from Terence
.6 Omnes laudare fortunas meas qui filium haberem.'
3. “ Aristides was a man than whom no one ever was more just.” This is a very common sort of expression, and yet it is grammatically incorrect. In the example as given there are two propositions - “ Aristides was a man; no one was ever more just than Aristides.” It is evident that the relative whom intended as a substitute for Aristides, and therefore must be in the case in which Aristides would be, if expressed; this case is in the nominative, as will appear from concluding the sense—“No one ever was more just than Aristides was ;" hence the expression should be than who. It is difficult to account for the prevalence of the form, than whom ; unless it be that it arose in the disposition of classical scholars to imitate the usage of the classical languages—justior quo—wherein there is no Latin for the particle than, and the relative is in a case not the nominative.
4. That, as a relative, is substituted for who and which:
(i.) After adjectives in the superlative degree; as, “Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived.”
(ii.) When the antecedent consists of two words, one requiring the relative who; the other, which ; as, “The man and the dog that were found in the snow, are recognised.”
(ii.) After the pronoun who used interrogatively; as, “Who that regards his character can act so ? "
(iv.) As the relative of same; as, “The same individual that we met yesterday."
(v.) After expressions relating to time; as, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Here that is equivalent to in which.
NOTE.—In such expressions as the last, that is frequently omitted; as,
“From the moment he arrived till he departed.”
5. What is often vulgarly used for that; as, “They did not understand but what they would be sent for.” In this expression, however, and similar ones, the word that is rather a conjunction than a pronoun.
6. Which is often questionably used for that : as, After which time;" this should be, " that or this time.” (See Observation 11. on the etymology of the Adjective.)
7. It is further to be remarked, with regard to that used relatively, that it seldom, if ever, follows a verb or preposition. We say—“The man to whom (not to that) I wrote yesterday.” Ő There met us a robber, having vanquished whom (not that) we went on our way.”
8. From what has been said it is manifest that certain relatives may be used as substitutes for others; care must be taken, however, that in complex sentences (should a necessity arise to introduce the relative more than once) the same relative be used. Mob is a noun; to represent which we use who or which indiscriminately. We say“ The mob, who now amounted to 500 individuals, and whom (not which) the force in the barracks was insufficient to resist;" or, “ The mob, which now amounted to 500 individuals, and which not whom) the force in the barracks was insufficient to resist.”
9. The infinitive mood is often used absolutely, to express a purpose, after the relative pronoun: thus—“Everything has been done by which to induce him to alter his mind. The infinitive so used depends on some word or words understood, by which it was possible to induce," &c. &c.