as, "He sends you his love;" "He sends his love to you."

7. Transitive verbs may be changed into passive. In such cases the sense expressed is the same, but the construction is altered: thus-" He struck the table," is convertible into-" The table was struck by him." (For the rule in cases of such conversion, see the remarks on the Etymology of the Verb.)

NOTE. Expressions like those given as examples in Observation 6, may account, in some instances at least, for such ungrammatical expressions as, "We were shown a house," wherein we is represented as shown, and not house; which latter, however, is the thing shown. (See Observation 22, on the etymology of the Verb.) The foregoing expression in the active voice would read thus

They (for instance) showed us a house," where us, the indirect object of showed, may, without consideration, be regarded as the direct one in the conversion of the sentence from active to passive: hence the us would naturally become we, according to the principles of conversion: the verb, of necessity, in that case, would become were shown, and, as a matter of course, house must follow. Such theory may or may not account for the violation of grammatical propriety in the case of expressions like "They were refused entrance," the transitive form of which would be, "Entrance was refused them;" but can never account for such

The

queen

expressions as- The man is gone;" is departed;" The philosophers are agreed;" "Our guests are not yet come; wherein an intransitive verb is treated as if it were transitive, and accordingly made passive; although the intransitive verb cannot, on the principles of conversion already stated, become passive.

8. It has been already said, in treating of the etymology of the Adjective, that it is sometimes regarded as a noun. Care must be taken in ascertaining when it is really used as a noun, and when as a mere adjective, having a noun understood. In the expression, "He was a friend to the blacks;" blacks having a plural form, is really treated as a noun, and must be regarded as the objective case governed by the preposition to. In the expression, on the other hand, "If the blind lead the blind;" blind is no noun, not

being capable of inflection (we don't say blinds), and, therefore, men, or some such noun, is understood, and is the subject and object respectively of the verb lead.

"The convertibility of words," says Latham, "in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of ideas unimpeded."

9. Sometimes an intransitive verb governs an objective case; but then the object must be analogous in signification to the verb. Between the verb to sleep, for instance, and the noun sleep, there is an identity of meaning; we therefore say, "He slept the sleep of death;" where sleep is said to be the objective case, governed by the intransitive verb slept, regarded as transitive. To such expressions belong, "He ran a race;" ;” “He dreamed a dream ;" "They travelled a journey;" "They walked the road." In the expression, "They walked the horse," however, walked is not intransitive in meaning, but transitive, being equal to caused or made to walk; and, therefore, governs horse in the objective case, as a transitive verb.

NOTE.-In explaining the construction, "He travelled a journey," and such like, there is no need of the theory alluded to in the foregoing observation, as the noun in every instance may be regarded as governed by some preposition understood; thus, journey, in the foregoing example, is governed by the preposition through or throughout, or some such word.

10. The same verb is frequently used in one case as transitive, in another as intransitive. Examples of this are found in the verbs to think, to move: thus--" Charity thinketh no evil," wherein thinketh is transitive; "Think before you speak," wherein the same verb is intransitive.

On the government of verbs, Latham has the following excellent remarks:-" (1.) The government of verbs is of two sorts-objective and modal. It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb; as He strikes me, He wounds the enemy. It is modal, when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by

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: thusTo 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

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.

Incon

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." sistent requires with; opposed requires to. It would be highly inelegant to write, "He acted in a manner incónsistent, 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 Scriptural 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

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

RULE III.-ON APPOSITION.

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 expression"Miltiades, 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