“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”
“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”
“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”
is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic licence may be pleaded in excuse.
“It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are preserved and maintained by your majesty’s authority, so we assure ourselves, you will not suffer them to be violated.”Whichis neither a regimen nor a nominative to any verb; the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical—Themis redundant.
“Whom do men say that I am?” The relative is here in the objective case, though there be no word in the sentenceby which it can be governed. In such inverted sentences, it is a good rule for those who are not well acquainted with the language to arrange the words in the natural order, beginning with the nominative and the verbs, thus, “men say, that I am who,” a sentence precisely analogous to “men say, that I am he,” the verb requiring the same case after it, as before it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, “Who do men say that I am?”
“Who do you speak to?” It ought to bewhom, the relative being under the government of the preposition, thus, “To whom do you speak?”
“Who she knew to be dead.”—Henry’s Hist. of Britain.Here also the relative should be in the objective case, under the government of the verb, thus, “whom she knew,” or “she knew whom to be dead.”
“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”—Milton.“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”—Pope.
“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”—Milton.“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”—Pope.
“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”—Milton.
“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”—Milton.
“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”—Pope.
“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,
With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”—Pope.
This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to Mr. Baker’s reason for condemning the phrase “than whom,” Story’s observations betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, and require correction. “The English,” says he, “is strictly good; for the relativewhomis not in the same case withsluice, (which is the nominative to the verbblots,) but referring to its antecedent,the king of dykes, is very properly in the objective case, even though the personal pronounhe, if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative.”
If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with its antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. Every page of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such must be his opinion, or his argument means nothing; for the only reason, which he offers forwhom, is, that its antecedent is in the objective case. Besides, ifthan whombe admissible, nay proper, he will have difficulty in assigning a good reason, why it should not be alsothan him. But Mr. Story should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the conjunction, but is either the nominative to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the preposition understood. Thesentence proceeds thus, “no sluice of mud blots with deeper sable, thanheorwhoblots.”
“It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and economy.”—Hume.The wordElizabeth, as represented in the latter clause, is here a mere word,nuda vox, and not the sign of a person; for it is said to be another name forprudenceandeconomy. Not the person, but the word, is said to be significant of this quality. The pronoun, therefore, should bewhich, notwho. The sentence, however, even thus corrected, would be inelegant. Better thus, “Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for prudence and economy.”
“Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the silly world may make upon you.” Consistency requires either “yourduty,” or “uponthee.”Thyandyour, a singular and a plural pronoun, each addressed to the same individual, are incongruous.
A similar error occurs in the following passage: “I prayyou, tarry all night, lodge here, thatthyheart may be merry.”—Bible.
“It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for these only devour the dead, those the living.” The pronounthisalways refers to the nearer object,thatto the more remote. This distinction is here reversed. It should be, “those (crows) devour the dead; these (flatterers) the living.” I observe also, in passing, that those adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, are not compared bymoreandmost. It ought to be, “it is better.”
“It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, have never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry.” It should behas,this peoplebeing in the singular number. We may say, “people have,” the noun being collective, but not “this people have.”
“I and you love reading.” This is a Latinism, and not accordant with our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, when he said, “Ego, et rex meus;” but in English we reverse the order. It should be, “you and I.” We say also, “he and I,” “they and I.”Youalways precedes.
“Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, and content themselves with the advantages of their particular districts.”—Addison.Here the pronoun does not agree with the word to which it refers, the wordeachbeing singular; whereasthemselvesandtheirare plural. It should be,itselfandits.
A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Some of our principal public schools have each a grammar oftheirown.”—Barrow on Education.It ought to be, “each a grammar ofitsown.” The expression is elliptical, for “schools have each (has) a grammar of its own.” Thus we say, “Simeon and Levi took each manhis sword,” nottheir swords.—Gen.xxxiv. 25.
“Let each esteem other better than themselves.”—Bible.For the reason just given, it ought to behimself.
“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”—Bible.Here is a manifest solecism, the pronountheirreferring to “his brother,” a singular subject.
“I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle away your time in making war upon women.”—Essay on the Writings of Pope.Here the pronoun disagrees in person with the noun to which it refers,herobeing of the third person, andyourof the second. The connexion is, “I wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle awayhistime.”
“The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a present from a friend,” &c.Whichis here in the objective case, and cannot properly be understood as the nominative to the verbwas: better, therefore, “and which was a present.” The following sentence is still more faulty: “It was happy for them, that the storm, in which they were, and was so very severe, lasted but a short time.” This is ungrammatical, the verb “was” having no nominative. It should be, “which was.”
“There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a body of regular troops in their pay.” This expression, to say the least of it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, “its pay.” “Is any nation sensible of the lowness of their own manners?”—Kames. Nationis here improperly construed as both singular and plural. It should be rather “its own.”
“The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, and of which he took no care to secure the continuance of it.”—Dryden.The redundancy of the wordsof it, renders the sentence somewhat ungrammatical. It should run thus, “The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, of which he took no care to secure the continuance.”
An improper reference occurs in the following sentence: “Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable to be deceived.”Onehere answers to the indefinite wordonin French, and cannot be represented by any pronoun. It must, therefore, be repeated, thus, “Unless one be very cautious, one will be liable to be deceived.”
“Give me them books.” Here the substantive pronoun is used adjectively, instead of the demonstrativethoseorthese. The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with substantives. We cannot say, “it book,” “they books,” “them books:” but “this” or “that book,” “these” or “those books.” The former phraseology may be deemed solecistical.
“Great numbers were killed on either side.”—Watson’s Philip III.“The Nile flows down the country above five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer, and marks on either side the extent of fertility by the measure of its inundation.”—Gibbon.
It has been already observed, that the Saxon wordægthersignifieseach, as Gen. vii. 2. “Clean animals thou shalt take by sevens of each kind,”ægthres gecyndes. The English wordeitheris sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is the only word in our language, by which we can express “one of two,” “which of the two you please,” and as it is generally employed in that sense, perspicuity requires that it be strictly confined to this signification. For, ifeitherbe used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly impossible for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only “one of two,” or “both,” be intended. In such expressions, for example,as “take either side,” “the general ordered his troops to march on either bank,” how is the reader or hearer to divine, whetherboth sides,both banks, oronly one, be signified? By employingeachto express “both,” taken individually, andeitherto denote “one of the two,” all ambiguity is removed.
“The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morning, as well as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel Izzard.”—Addison to Swift.After the writer has spoken of himself in the third person, there is an impropriety in employing the pronoun of the first. Much better “in his return.”
“The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly different.”—Warburton.From this sentence it would seem, that there is only one subject of discourse,the endsbelonging to one individual,a divine and human legislator. The author intended to express two different subjects, namely, “the objects of a divine,” and “the objects of a human legislator.” The demonstrativethoseis omitted. It should be, “the ends of a divine, and those of a human legislator, are vastly different.” This error consists in defect, or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun: in the following sentence the error is redundancy. “They both met on a trial of skill.”Bothmeans “they two,” asamboin Latin is equivalent to “οἱ δύο” It should therefore be, “both met on a trial of skill.”
“These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength.” This, says Baker, is nonsense; for these words signify only, that A is equal in strength, and B equal in strength, without implying to whom; so that the wordequalhas nothing to which it refers. “A and B,” says he, “are equal in strength,” is sense; this means, that they are equal to each other. “A and B are both equal in strength to C,” is likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that, when he admits the expression, “are both equal,” as significant of the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not strictly convey that idea. For if we say, “A and B are both equal,” it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are possessed of two attributes or qualities, one of which is here expressed; and in this sense only, as I conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we may say, with strict propriety,“A and B are both equal in strength, and superior in judgment to their contemporaries.” Or it may denote, that “they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.” In the former case,bothis necessarily followed byand, which is in Latin rendered byet. Thus, “A and B are the two things, (both)equal in strength, and (add)superior in judgmentto their contemporaries.” In the latter case, it is equivalent toambo, expressing two collectively, as, “they twotogetherare equal to C, but notseparately.” I am aware, that the wordbothin English, likeamboin Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either “the two collectively,” or “the two separately,” and that many examples of the latter usage may be adduced. But that surely cannot be deemed a correct or appropriate term, which, in its strict signification, conveys an idea different from that intended by the speaker; or which leaves the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The wordeach, substituted forboth, renders the expression clear and precise, thus, “A and B are each equal to C, in strength.”[144]
An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sentence: “This proves, that the date of each letter must have been nearly coincident.” Coincident with what? Not surely with itself; nor can the date of each letter be coincident with each other. It should be, “that the dates of both letters must have been nearly coincident with each other.”
“It’s great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal.” Better,’Tis, in order to distinguish the contraction from the genitive singular of the pronounit.
“Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever believe but what I have been entirely to blame.” The pronounwhat, equivalent tothat which, is here improperly used forthat. This mode of expression still obtains among the lower orders of the people, and is not confined to them in the northern parts of the island. It should be, “thatI have been.” The converse of this error occurs in the following passages:
“That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance,to do always that is righteous in thy sight.”—Book of Common Prayer.
“For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, according to that a man hath.”—Bible.
The pronounsitandthatwere formerly used as including the relative. “This submission is it implieth them all.” “This is it men mean by distributive justice.”—Hobbes.“To consider advisedly of that is moved.”—Bacon.This usage is now obsolete. The clauses should therefore proceed thus, “to do always what,” or “that, which is righteous.” “According to what,” or “that, which a man hath.”
“Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show of their king’s affection, and many sugared words, seek toaddulceall matters between the two kings.”—Bacon.The verb “to addulce” is obsolete.
“Do villany, do; since you profess toLike workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.”Shakspeare.
“Do villany, do; since you profess toLike workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.”Shakspeare.
“Do villany, do; since you profess to
Like workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.”
Shakspeare.
The verb “to example,” as equivalent to the phrase “to set an example,” is obsolete; and when used for “to exemplify,” may be deemed obsolescent. “The proof whereof,” says Spencer in hisState of Ireland, “I saw sufficiently exampled;” better “exemplified.”
“I called at noon at Mrs. Masham’s, who desired me not to let the prophecy be published, for fear of angering the queen.”—Swift.The verb “to anger” is almost obsolete. In Scotland, and in the northern part of England, it is still colloquially used; but in written language, of respectable authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met with it once or twice in Swift or Pope; since their time it appears to have been gradually falling into disuse.
“Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, orshall we surcease?”—Geddes’s Transl.The verb to “surcease” is obsolete.
“And they and he, upon this incorporation and institution, and onyng of themself into a realme, ordaynyd,” &c.—Fortescue.Here we have the participle of the verb “to one,” now obsolete, for “to unite.”
“For it is no power to may alien, and put away; but it is a power to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is no power to may syne, and to do ill, or to may be syke, or wex old, or that a man may hurt himself; for all thees powers comyne of impotencye.”—Ib.It has been already observed, that the verbmayis derived from the Saxonmægan,posse.—Seep. 97. From the passage before us it appears, that in the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the infinitive “to may,” for “to be able,” was in use. It has now been long obsolete. In the following passage, it forms what is called a compound tense with the wordshall, the sign of the infinitive being suppressed. “Wherthorough the parlements schall may do more good in a moneth.”—Ib.That is, “shall be able to do.”
“Wherefor al, that he dotheowithto be referryed to his kingdom.”—Ib.The verb toowe, as expressive of duty, is now obsolete. It has been supplanted byought, formerly its preterite tense, and now used as a present. We should now say, “ought to be referred.”
“Both these articles were unquestionably true, and could easily have been proven.”—Henry’s History of Britain.“Admitting the charges against the delinquents to be fully proven.”—Belsham’s History.Provenis now obsolete, having given place to the regular participle. It is still, however, used in Scotland, and is therefore deemed a Scotticism.
“Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had been the morning before.”Methoughtsis barbarous, and also violates analogy, the third person beingthought, and notthoughts.
“You was busy, when I called.” Here a pronoun plural is joined with a verb in the singular number. It should be, “you were.”
“The keeping good company, even the best, is but a lessshameful art of losing time. What we here call science and study are little better.”Whatis equivalent tothat which. It should beis, and notare; thus, “that, which we call ... is little better.”
“Three times threeisnine,” and “three times three are nine,” are modes of expression in common use; and it has become a question, which is the more correct. The Romans admitted both phraseologies. “Quinquies et vicies duceni quadrageni singulifiuntsex millia et viginti quinque.”—Colum.Here the distributive numerals are the nominatives to the verb. “Ubiestsepties millies sestertium.”—Cic.Here the adverbial numerals make the nominative, and the verb is singular. Plurality being evidently implied, the plural verb seems more consonant with our natural conception of numbers, as well as with the idiom of our language.
“This is one of those highwaymen, that was condemned last sessions.” According to the grammatical construction of this sentence, “one of those highwaymen” is the predicate; for the syntactical arrangement is, “This (highwayman), that was condemned last sessions, is one of those highwaymen.” But this is not the meaning which this sentence is in general intended to convey: for it is usually employed to denote, that several highwaymen were condemned, and that this is one of them. The sentence, therefore, thus understood, is ungrammatical; for the antecedent is, in this case, notone, buthighwaymen. The relative, therefore, being plural, should be joined with a plural verb, thus, “This is one of those highwaymen, thatwerecondemned last sessions.”
“I had went to Lisbon, before you knew that I had arrived in England.” This is an egregious solecism, the auxiliary verbhad, which requires the perfect participle, being here joined with the preterite tense. It should be, “I had gone.”
“He would not fall the trees this season.” The verb “to fall” is intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed by an objective case, denoting a thing acted upon. It should be, “he would not fell.”
“Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and thatby all means he sells the horses.”—Swift.Here we have in the latter clause a thing expressed as done or doing, for a thing commanded. It should be, “that he should sell;” or elliptically, “that he sell.”
“It is very probable that neither of these are the meaning of the text.” Neither, means, “not the one, nor the other,” denoting the exclusion of each of two things. It should, therefore, be, “neitheristhe meaning of the text.”
“He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had the art to conceal them from the eyes of the public.” According to the grammatical construction of this sentence,vicesunderstood is the nominative to the verbhad; thus, “whose vices were very great, and whose vices had the art to conceal them.” It should be, “and who had the art to conceal them.”
“At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number of houses, that amounted to a considerable city.” Here the verbamountedhas no nominative. To render the sentence grammatical, it should be, “that they amounted,” or “as amounted to a considerable city.”
“It requires more logic than you possess, to make a man to believe that prodigality is not a vice.” After the verb “to make,” the sign of the infinitive should be omitted.SeeRule xv. note 3.
“He dare not,” “he need not,” may be justly pronounced solecisms, for “he dares,” “he needs.”
“How do your pulse beat?”Pulseis a noun singular, and is here ungrammatically joined with a verb plural. It should be, “howdoesyour pulse beat?”
“The river had overflown its banks.”Overflownis the participle of the verbto fly, compounded withover. It should be “overflowed,” the participle of “overflow.”
“They that sin rebuke before all.” The pronoun, which should be the regimen of the verbrebuke, is here put in the nominative case. It should, therefore, bethem. The natural order is, “rebuke them, that sin.”
“There are principles innate in man, which ever have, and ever will incline him to this offence.” If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence will be found to be ungrammatical; thus “which ever have incline, and ever will incline.” It should be, “which ever have inclined, and ever will incline.”
“Nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners of Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by vanity.”—Gibbon.“Substituteto,” is a Latinism. It should be, “substitutefor.”
“I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the frequent disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order.”—Swift’s Letters.“You had better return home without delay.” In both these exampleswouldis far preferable, thus, “I would rather live,” “you would better return,” or “you would do better to return.”
“That he had much rather be no king at all, than have heretics for his subjects.”—Watson’s Philip III.Here is involved the same error. It should be, “he would.”
“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the nobles of the Lancastrian party having been either killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts.”—Henry’s History.This sentence is ungrammatical. The wordnoblesjoined to the participlehavingmust be regarded as put absolutely, and therefore to the verbhadthere is strictly no nominative. But, even were a nominative introduced, the structure of the sentence would be still highly objectionable, the two last clauses, “having been killed,” and “they had fled,” being utterly discordant one with the other. The primary idea to be expressed is thefewness of the nobility; this forms the subject of the principal clause. There are two reasons to be assigned for this fewness,their destructionandtheir flight; these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. Between these two, therefore, there should be the strictest congruity; and in this respect the sentence is faulty. It ought to proceed either thus, “The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons; for all the nobles of the Lancastrian party had either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts;” or thus, “all the nobles having been killed, or having fled.” The latter is the preferable form.
“He neglected to profit of this occurrence.” This phraseology occurs frequently in Hume. “To profit of,” is a Gallicism; it ought to be, “to profitbythis occurrence.”
“The people of England may congratulatetothemselves,that the nature of our government and the clemency of our king, secure us.”—Dryden.“Congratulate to,” is a Latinism. The person congratulated should be in the objective case governed by the verb; the subject is preceded by the prepositionon, as, “I congratulate youonyour arrival.”
“You will arrive to London before the coach.”
“A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of Ireland.”—Swift’s Sacr. Test.
In these examples the verb “to arrive,” is followed byto, instead ofat, an error which should be carefully avoided. Good writers never construe it with the preposition significant of motion or progression concluded, but with those prepositions which denote propinquity or inclusion, namely,atorin. Hence also to join this verb with adverbs, expressive of motion to, or towards a place, is improper. We should say, “he arrivedhere,there,where,” not—“hither,thither,whither.”
“Elizabeth was not unconcerned; she remonstrated to James.”—Andrew’s Continuation of Henry’s History.This is incorrect. We remonstratewithand nottoa person, andagainsta thing.
“I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad by myself.” According to the structure of the second and third clauses of this sentence,the Lordis the antecedent tothat, which is, therefore, properly joined with the third person of the verbs following, “maketh,” “spreadeth;” but the pronoun of the first person,myself, in the last clause, does not accord with this structure; for as we cannot say, “he spreadeth the earth by myself,” there being only one agent implied, and whereheandmyselfare supposed to allude to one person, so we cannot say, “that (Lord) spreadeth the earth by myself,” but “by himself,” an identity of person being indispensably requisite. The sentence, therefore, should conclude thus, “that spreadeth abroad the earth by himself.” Ifmyselfbe retained, the pronounImust be considered as the antecedent, and the sentence will then run thus: “I am the Lord, that make all things, that stretch forth the heavens alone, that spread abroad the earth bymyself.”
“Thou great First Cause, least understood,Who all my sense confin’dTo know but this, that thou art good,And that myself am blind.”—Pope.
“Thou great First Cause, least understood,Who all my sense confin’dTo know but this, that thou art good,And that myself am blind.”—Pope.
“Thou great First Cause, least understood,
Who all my sense confin’d
To know but this, that thou art good,
And that myself am blind.”—Pope.
The antecedent to the pronounwhois the pronoun of the second person singular. The relative, therefore, being of the same person, should be joined to the second person singular of the verb, namely, “confinedst.”
“The executive directory, to prove that they will not reject any means of reconciliation, declares,” &c.—Belsham’s Hist.The nominative is here joined to a verb singular, and at the same time represented by a pronoun plural. The error may be corrected either by the substitution ofitforthey, ordeclareinstead ofdeclares.
“These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they might sometimes produce good effects, in particular cases, when properly timed, yet could they do but little towards eradicating faults.”—Sheridan.The nominativeadmonitionsis connected with no verb, the pronountheybeing the nominative to the verbcould. The sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical; nor can the figurehyperbatonbe here pleaded in excuse, as the simplicity and shortness of the sentence render it unnecessary.Theyin the third clause should be suppressed.
“This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, is, or shall be published.”—Bolingbroke.Hasbeing merely a part of a compound tense, conveys no precise meaning without the rest of the tense. When joined, then, to the participle, here belonging to the three auxiliaries, the sentence proceeds thus, “This dedication may serve for almost any book, thathaspublished.” It ought to be “has been, is, or shall be published.” The following sentence is chargeable with an error of the same kind.
“This part of knowledge has been always growing, and will do so, till the subject be exhausted.” Do what? The auxiliary cannot refer tobeen, for the substantive verb, or verb of existence, does not imply action, nor can we say, “do growing.” It ought to be, “has been growing, and will still be so.”
“All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, andthis I shall do.”—Warburton.Here is a similar incongruity. He should have said, “and this shall be done.”
Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow under this head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, than solecisms.
“’T was twenty years and more, that I have known him,” says Pope to Gay, speaking of Congreve’s death. It ought to be, “It is twenty years and more,” the period concluding with the present time, or the time then present. He might have said, “It is now twenty years,” where the adverbnow, being obviously admissible, points to present time, and necessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, “’T was twenty years.” When? not surely in some part of the past time, but at the time of writing.
“Itwerewell for the insurgents, and fortunate for the king, if the blood, that was now shed, had been thought a sufficient expiation for the offence.”—Goldsmith.“It were,” which is equivalent to “it would be,” is evidently incongruous with the following tense, “had been thought.” It ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, “it would have been,” or, “it had been, well for the insurgents.”
“Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I should be for allowing this great model.”—Addison.This form of expression cannot be pronounced entirely repugnant to analogy, the preterite of the auxiliary “to have” being used in a similar sense. But the verb “to be” having a mood appropriate to the expression of conditionality, the author should have said, “Were man like his Creator.”
“If you please to employ your thoughts on that subject, you would easily conceive the miserable condition many of us are in.”—Steele.Here there is obviously an incongruity of tense. It should be either, “if you please to employ, youwillconceive,” or “if it pleased you to employ, youwouldconceive.”
“James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell upon her legs.”—Adam’s Hist. of England.Here the latter clause, which is intended to predicate an attribute of the species, expresses simply a particular fact; in other words, what is intended to be signified as equally true of all, is here limitedto one of the kind. It should be, “alwaysfallsupon her legs.”
“This is the last time I shall ever go to London.” This mode of expression, though very common, is certainly improper after the person is gone, and can be proper only before he sets out. The French speak correctly when they say, “la dernière fois que je vais,”i.e.the last time of my going. We ought to say, “this is the last time I shall be in London.”
“He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle to Hiero, who immediately accepted it.” Consistency requires, that the last verb be in the same tense with the preceding verbs. The actions are described as present; the language is graphical, and that which has been properly enough denominated the “historical tense” should not be employed. It ought to be, “who immediately accepts it.”
“I have lost this game, though I thought I shouldhave wonit.” It ought to be, “though I thought I shouldwinit.” This is an error of the same kind, as, “I expected to have seen you,” “I intended to have written.” The preterite time is expressed by the tenses “expected,” “intended;” and, how far back soever that expectation or intention may be referred, the seeing or writing must be considered as contemporary, or as soon to follow; but cannot, without absurdity, be considered as anterior. It should be, “I expected to see,” “I intended to write.” Priestley, in defending the other phraseology, appears to me to have greatly erred, the expression implying a manifest impossibility. The action, represented as the object of an expectation or intention, and therefore, in respect to these, necessarily future, cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be exhibited as past, or antecedent to these. In the following passage the error seems altogether indefensible. “The most uncultivated Asiatics discover that sensibility, which, from their situation on the globe, we should expect them to have felt.”—Robertson’s History of America.The author expresses himself, as if he referred to a past sensation, while the introductory verb shows that he alludes to a general fact. The incongruity is obvious. He should have said, “expect them to feel.”
“Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”—Pope.
“Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”—Pope.
“Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”—Pope.
Much better, “Fierce as he moves.” Congruity of tense is thus preserved; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty in employing the present,—a beauty, of which the preterite is wholly incapable. The former imparts vivacity to the expression; it presents the action, with graphical effect, to the mind of the reader; and thus, by rendering him a spectator of the scene, impresses the imagination, and rouses the feelings with greater energy. Compared to the latter, it is like the pencil of the artist to the pen of the historian.
“Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that I should do unto thee?” The blind man said unto him: “Lord, that I might receive my sight.” It ought to be, “that I may receive my sight,”I willbeing understood; thus, “I will, that I may receive my sight,” where the present wish, and the attainment of it, are properly represented as contemporary.
“These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might be full.” Better, “that your joy may be full.”
“If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he would confess, that there was a God.” Universal, or abstract truths, require the present tense; it should be, “that thereisa God.”
“ ... impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was nothing, as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was nothing, as if all that was sweetest, and all that was highest in human nature was an idle show.”—Godwin’s Life of Chaucer.This sentence errs at once against elegance and accuracy. The former offence may be partly corrected, by substituting the conditional for the indicative tense, in the hypothetical clauses. But the author’s principal error consists in converting a general proposition into a particular fact, by representing that as past which is always present and immutable. The sentence should proceed thus: “Impresses us with a feeling, as if refinementwerenothing, as if facultieswerenothing, as if virtuewerenothing, as if all thatissweetest, and all thatishighest in human nature,werean idle show.”
A similar error occurs in this passage: “He proceeded to demonstrate, that deathwasnot an evil;” and also in this, “I have frequently been assured by great ministers, that politicswerenothing, but common sense.”
“Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant companion,wasit polished by good manners.” As the latter clause is intended to be purely hypothetical, the verb should not be in the indicative mood. “Wereit polished,” is the proper expression.
“He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although it were different from that of this island.”—Swift’s Voyage to Laputa.From the phraseology here employed, the reader might naturally infer, that the language of the island, and that of Balnibarbi, were identical; for a concessive term, as I have already said, when joined to what is called the conjunctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis, as contrary to fact; or, in other words, implies a negation of the attribute expressed. The author’s intention was to signify, that the languageswere notthe same. He should, therefore, have said, “although itwasdifferent.”
“The circumstances were as follows.” Several grammarians and critics have approved this phraseology; I am inclined, however, to concur with those, who prefer “as follow.” To justify the former mode of expression, the verb must be considered as impersonal. This, I own, appears to me a very questionable solution of the difficulty; for I am convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but such as are uniformly preceded byit. We frequently, indeed, meet with sentences, where verbs occur without a nominative, and in the singular number. These are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs, to which the nominativeitis understood. I apprehend, however, that, on strict inquiry, some one or other of the preceding words, which are now considered as conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was originally the nominative; and that it is only since the primitive and real character of these words has been obliterated and lost, that we have found it necessary to inquire for another nominative. Thus, if the wordasbe equivalent toit,that, orwhich[145], then it is obvious, that, when we say, “the circumstances wereas follows,” there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, nor, therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of the verb, in order to explain the syntax, or construction of the phrase; for the wordas, equivalent toit,that, orwhich, is the true nominative. It is evident, then, that this solution of the difficulty must be rejected as false; and that the argument in favour of “as follows,” resting on the supposed impersonality of the verb, and the suppression of the pronoun, is entirely unfounded.
Ifasthen be the nominative to the verb, and be synonymous withit,that, orwhich, it is of importance to determine, whetherasbe a singular, or a plural word; or whether it be either the one, or the other. That it is construed as singular, there can be no doubt. We say, “his insensibility is such,as excitesour detestation.” That it is also joined to a verb plural is equally certain, thus, “his manners are such,as areuniversally pleasing.” In the former example,such asis equivalent tothat which, and in the latter tothose which. Ifas, then, be either singular or plural, and synonymous withit,that, orwhich, I conceive that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, it must, likewhich, be considered as plural, and joined to a plural verb. Now, it is surely more consonant with analogy to say, “the circumstances were, which follow,” thanit follows, orthat follows. Besides, when the demonstrativesuchprecedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it is universally admitted, thatasmust then be followed by a plural verb. If so, the construction of the wordascannot, I apprehend, be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of the correlative term. Let us now hear those who adopt the contrary opinion.
Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks “that there are instances in our language of verbs in the third person without a nominative case, as, ‘he censures her, so far as regards.’” In answer to this it may be observed, that, if the wordasis to be considered in no other light, than as a conjunctive particle, it is certainly true, that the verbregardshas no nominative. But I am persuaded, no person who has examined the theory of Mr. Tooke can entertain a doubt respecting the original and real character of this word. Nay,if we investigate the true and primitive import of the correspondent Latin termsutanduti, we shall find, that these, which are termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronounsὅτι, ὁτ’, and thatquod(anciently writtenquodde) is nothing else thanκαὶ ὅττι, which, like our wordthat, is sometimes called a conjunction, and sometimes a pronoun. Why the original character and real import of the wordashave been completely merged in the name of adverb, while the wordthathas been assigned the double character of pronoun and conjunction, it would be easy to show, if the discussion were essential to the question before us. But in answer to Baker’s remark, it is sufficient to observe, thatasmeans properlyit,that, orwhich.
Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. “When a verb,” says he, “is used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed or understood.” But a question naturally arises, whence has the author learned that the verb is impersonal? There appears to me to be no more impersonality in the verb, when we say, “it is as follows,” than when we say, “it is such, as follows,” or, “they are such, as follow.” Ifasbe admitted as the nominative in two of these examples, I can perceive no reason for rejecting it in the third. But here lies, as will presently appear, the author’s great error. Unacquainted with the true meaning of the wordas, he conceived it as incapable of becoming a nominative to a verb, asutorutiis deemed in Latin; and he therefore immediately recurs toellipsis.
“For this reason” (that is, because the verb is impersonal), he proceeds to observe, “analogy as well as usage favour this mode of expression,The conditions of the agreement were as follows, and notas follow.”
How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. The general rule surely is, that to every verb there shall be a nominative, and that this nominative shall be expressed, unless its presence in some preceding clause shall render the repetition of it unnecessary. But how is it consonant with analogy, that no nominative shall appear; or that the supposed nominative shall not be found in any part of the sentence? This surely is repugnant to analogy.
“A few late writers,” he observes, “have inconsiderately adopted this last form (as follow) through a mistake of the construction.” But, if the verb be not impersonal, the error is his, not theirs. I must observe, likewise, that from the manner in which the author expresses himself, one would naturally infer, that a few writers, either contemporary, or immediately preceding his own time, had inconsiderately introduced a solecism into our language. When he offered this observation, he surely was not aware that Steele and Addison, nearly seventy years before the publication of “The Philosophy of Rhetoric,” used the plural form. “The most eminent of the kennel,” says Steele, “are blood-hounds, which lead the van, and areas follow.”—Tatler, No. 62. “The words wereas follow.”—Ibid.No. 104. “The words areas follow.”—Addison,Spectator, No. 513.
“For the same reason,” continues he, still presuming the verb to be impersonal, “we ought to say,I shall consider his censures so far only, as concerns my friend’s conduct, notconcern. It is manifest,” he observes, “that the wordconditionsin the first case, andcensuresin the second, cannot serve as nominatives.” This observation demonstrates that the author’s argument is founded in his ignorance of the real character of the wordas. The most extraordinary part of his reasoning follows. “But,” says he, “if we give either sentence another turn, and instead ofas, saysuch as, the verb is no longer impersonal. The pronounsuchis the nominative, whose number is determined by its antecedent. Thus we must say,they were such as follow;such of his censures only as concern my friend.” This is truly an extraordinary assertion. The antecedent correlative termsuchcan have no connexion whatever with the subsequent verb, but must agree with the principal subject of discourse. Not only does analogy require this, but the usage of every language with which I am acquainted. If we say,Perseverantia fuit tanta, quantus erat furor.Is est, quem dicimus.Talis est, qualem esse creditis.Illæ erant conditiones, quæ sequuntur,—the antecedent correlative termstanta,is,talis,illæ,—have no connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause,erat,dicimus,creditis,sequuntur. The truth of this observationmust be sufficiently obvious to every classical scholar.
But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned author’s opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and say, “I will consider those censures only, which concern my friend.” In this sentence it will not be questioned thatthoseandcensuresare in the objective case, under the government of the verb. And can it be doubted, if we say, “I will consider such censures,” thatcensureswith its concordant adjective are in the same case? It is impossible, I conceive, to make this plainer; but we shall suppose, for the sake of illustration, if this should yet be deemed necessary, the example in question to be thus rendered in Latin,eas tantum reprehensiones perpendam, quæ ad amicum meum attinent. Now, what should we think of his classical attainments who should contend thateasorreprehensionesis the nominative to the verb? If we revert, then, to the original terms, and say, “I will consider such of his censures as concern my friend,” by what rule of grammar, by what principle of analysis, can we supposesuchto be the nominative to the verb? For let me ask, what is he to consider? Is it notsuch censures? And are we, contrary to every principle of English grammar, to represent the object or subject after an active verb, as in the nominative case? The absurdity is too monstrous for a moment’s consideration. The very argument, therefore, by which the author defends his doctrine is founded in error, and involves an absurdity. Murray, as usual, adopts the opinion of Campbell.
If it should be inquired howas, an adverb or a conjunctive particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it may be answered, that to whatever order of words we reduce this term, it was evidently at first what we denominate a pronoun; and that it still so far retains its primitive character as to supply the place of a nominative. It is of little moment by what designation it be called, if its character and real import are well understood, any more than it can be of consequence whether we callthata conjunction or a pronoun, provided we know, that it is truly and essentially the same word in the same meaning wherever it occurs. I would observe, also, thoughmy limits will not permit me to illustrate the principle, that those, who disapprove the verb singular in the examples in question, may notwithstanding admit it in such expressions asso far as,so long as, and all similar phraseologies.
“To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have meditated Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and consulted the following moderns.”—Gibbon.To meditate, when a regimen is assigned to it, as here, meansto plot,to contrive, as, “he meditated designs against the state.” When it signifiesto ponder, orto reflect seriously, it should be followed by the prepositionon, as, “he meditatesonthe law of God day and night.”
“They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of the ambassador.”—Anderson’s Embassy to China.Here the verbto proceed, orgo forward, is improperly used forto precede, orto go before.
“He waved the subject of his greatness.”—Dryden.“To wave” is properly “to move loosely,” and should be distinguished from “to waive,”i.e.“to leave” or “to turn from.”—SeeSkinner’s Etym.
“It lays on the table; it laid on the table.” This error is very common, and should be carefully avoided. The verbto layis an active verb;to lieis a neuter verb. When the subject of discourse is active, the former is to be used; when the subject is neither active nor passive, the latter ought to be employed. Thus, “he lays down the book,” “he laid down the book,” where the nominative expresses an agent, or a person acting. “The book lies there,” “the book lay there,” where the nominative expresses something, neither active, nor passive. When we hear such expressions as these, “he lays in bed,” “he laid in bed,” a question naturally occurs, what does he lay? what did he lay? This question demonstrates the impropriety of the expressions. The error has originated, partly in an affected delicacy, rejecting the verb “to lie,” as being synonymous with the verb “to tell a falsehood wilfully,” and partly from the identity of the one verb in the present with the other in the preterite sense; thus, “lay,” “laid,” “laid;” “lie,” “lay,” “lain.”
“The child was overlain.” The participle, for the reason now given, should beoverlaid.
“It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and not my cousin.” This use of the preterite definite is, I believe, confined to Scotland, where, in colloquial language, it is very common. The Scots employ it in those cases, in which an Englishman uses either the preterite indefinite, or the verb signifying necessity. Thus, in the preceding instance, an Englishman would say, “itmust have beenmy brother, you saw in the theatre.”
“Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in understanding several passages in the classics.”—Blair’s Lectures.“In the Latin language, there are no two words we would more readily take to be synonymous, thanamareanddiligere.”—Ib.This error occurs frequently in Blair. In the former example it should beshall, and in the lattershould. (Seep. 98.)
An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following passage. “There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will, in going to a mask, and she shall dress like a shepherdess.”—Spectator, No. 9. It should be,she will. The author intended to signify mere futurity; instead of which he has expressed a command.
“Herosethe price of bread last week.” Hererose, the preterite of the neuter verbto rise, and, therefore, unsusceptible of a regimen, is ungrammatically joined with an objective case, instead ofraised, the preterite of the active verbto raise. This error, therefore, involves a solecism, as well as an impropriety.
“Does the price of bread raise this week?” This error is the converse of the former, the active verb being here used instead of the neuter. The question, What does it raise? shows the impropriety of the expression. It ought to be, “Does the price of bread rise this week?” These verbs, like the verbto layandto lie, are very often confounded in vulgar use.
“It would be injurious to the character of Prince Maurice, to suppose, that he would demean himself so far, as to be concerned in those anonymous pamphlets.”—Watson’s Philip III.Here the verbto demean, which signifies “to behave,” is used as equivalent to the verbto debase, or “to degrade.” This impropriety is now, I believe, almost entirely confined to Scotland; it has, therefore, been ranked in the number of Scotticisms. “I demean myself” is equivalent to “I behave myself;” and in this sense the author last quoted has, in another passage, very properly used it. “Such of the Morescoes might remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned themselves as Christians.”—Ibid.
“Considerable arrears being now resting to the soldiers.”—Ibid.“Resting,” which is equivalent to “being quiet,” or “remaining,” is, in the sense in which it is here employed, a rank Scotticism: it should be, “due,” or “owing.”
“The reason will be accounted for hereafter.”—Warburton.Accounted foris here improperly used forassigned. “To account for a reason,” is “to account for an account.”
“But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, this being a distinct jurisdiction, which differs it considerably from these instances.”—Blackstone.The verbto differis a neuter verb, and cannot admit a regimen. The author has improperly used it in an active sense, for “to make to differ.” It should be, “by which it differs,” or “which makes it differ considerably from these instances.”[146]
“In order to have this project reduced to practice, there seems to want nothing more, than to put those in mind,” &c.—Swift.Here, “to want,” that is, “to need,” “to require,” is improperly used for “to be wanting,” “to be required,” “to be wanted.” It should be, “there seems to be nothing wanting.” The verbto wantwas frequently employed by Pope and Swift in the sense in which we here find it. Johnson, likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted the same usage, thus, “there had never wanted writers to talk occasionally of Arcadia and Strephon.”—Life of Phillips.But in this sense it may now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely obsolete.
The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is an idiom in our language, respecting the use of active for passive verbs, which seems worthy of attention, and which I do not recollect to have seen remarked by any of our grammarians.In the languages of antiquity, the distinction between active and passive was strictly observed; but in English the active is frequently employed for the passive voice. Of this remarkable idiom numberless examples might be produced; but the few following will suffice. Thus we say, “the sentencereadsill,” “the winedrinksharsh,” “the grasscutseasily,” “the appleseathard,” “the drumbeatsto arms,” “the metalworkswell.” In these examples, the subject clearly is acted upon; the verb, therefore, must be considered as having a passive signification. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that this phraseology should be avoided, whenever it is likely to create ambiguity.
“Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me.”—Book of Common Prayer, Psal. xxv. The verbto learnformerly denoted, either “to teach,” or “to acquire knowledge.” In the former sense it is now obsolete. It should therefore be, “lead me forth in thy truth, andteachme.”
“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most gracious favour.”—Book of Common Prayer.“He had prevented the hour, because we might have the whole day before us.”—Bacon.The verbto prevent, as signifying “to go before,” or “come before,” is now obsolete.
“There was no longer any doubt, that the king was determined to wreck his resentment on all concerned.”—Watson’s Philip II.
“They not only wrecked their vengeance on the living, but on the ashes of the dead heretics.”—Henry’s Britain.
Here the verbto wreck, or “to destroy, by dashing on rocks,” is improperly used for “to wreak,” or “to discharge.” In the last example the adverbsnot onlyare improperly placed. It should be, “they wreaked their vengeance not only,” &c.
“We outrun our present income, not doubting to disburse ourselves out of the profits of some future plan.”—Addison.“To disburse,” or “to expend money,” is here improperly used for “to reimburse,” or “to repay.”
“And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the apostles.”—Bacon.
“The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, asbeing conform to the nature of knowledge.”—Hutton’s Investigation, vol. i. p. 643.Conform, here used forconformable, is, in this sense, deemed a Scotticism.
“Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between princes, that so holily was observed to the last, of those two excellent men.”—Sidney on Government.Holilyis obsolete.
“Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt.”—Bacon.The adverbeasilyis not compared,—seep. 70.Easiliestis, therefore, a barbarism.
“Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be a stranger to what had passed there, their acknowledgment to one they met accidently, that they believed in this prophet,” &c.—Guardian.Steele has here usedaccidently, foraccidentally. The former is a barbarism, and its derivation is repugnant to analogy.