« ForrigeFortsæt »
Review-Grammar of the English Language.
much used; I have began to learn talk much of a case absolute; as, French; the coach had came away,”&c. shame being lost, all virtue is lost;' We think it highly objectionable to he being dead, yet speaketh.'— The give any sort of countenance to such case absolute is no case at all. It is expressions as I have began, the coach merely the fragment of a phrase, not had came.
If such innovations be al- reducible to law, till the ellipsis is lowed, our language will be essentially supplied. Hence Dr. Crombie, and seinjured.
veral of our wiser grammarians, are Page 85. “ When the prepositions silent about the case absolute.” out, near, far, even, &c. precede an- Notwithstanding Dr. Crombie's and other preposition, they become ad- Mr. Sutcliffe's opinion, this case must, jectives.”
This we think a novel and we think, be allowed in our language. objectionable hypothesis. Mr. S. mere- One of the two examples adduced ly makes the assertion, without ad-above, contains no case absolute: he ducing any authority, or offering any being dead, yet speaketh; here he is argument in proof. If the occurrence plainly nominative to the verb speaketh. of two consecutive prepositions causes The other example is appropriate ; any change of character in the first of shame being lost, all virtue is lost. This them, it would be far more plausible to Mr. S. does not attempt to analyze ; say that it becomes an adverb, than an nor do we see how such a construction adjective.
can be accounted for, without calling *Page 99.“ When the infinitive mood shame the case absolute. It is not the occurs, it is said to supply the place of nominative to the verb is lost, that verb the nominative;- as, “to learn is laud- has virtue for its nominative: neither able.' But assuredly the noun or pro- is it the nominative after that verb; noun is understood; as, ' for me or you nor is it the objective case ; for there to learn is laudable.' It certainly is neither verb nor preposition, that would be more correct to say, that the can cause it to be in the objective. nominative is understood before the Some grammarians think that the infinitive mood.”
absolute cases in Latin and Greek are Mr. S. would have us to believe, it always governed by some preposition seems, that in the above example, the understood. Some of the English abobjective case me or you (understood), solute cases may be accounted for on governed by the preposition for, is no- this principle. Thus, in the above minative case to the verb is. This is example shame being lost, denotes the perfectly absurd. In all such instances, same as in consequence of shame being the infinitive is a mere substitute for a lost, or through shame being lost. Others noun ; thus, to learn is laudable, is equi- of our absolute cases may be accountvalent to learning is laudable ; to err is ed for, on the principle of ellipsis; human, that is, error is human: hence thus, the sun rising, the shadows disapthere can be no impropriety in saying, pear; i. e. when the sun is rising : whose that the infinitive, in these cases, is used gray top, shall tremble, he descending ; as a nominative to the following verb. i. e. while he is descending, But if
Page 101. “ Again where there such forms of speech are allowable, it are two nominatives and but one accu- seems necessary to call the noun or sative, or but one nominative and two pronoun the case absolute, as it cannot accusatives, we could not know whe- be proved to be either nominative or ther to use a singular or a plural verb. objective according to the ordinary Ex. His meat was locusts and wild rules of construction. honey.” In this example there is no If Mr. S. will not allow this case to accusative case at all, the three sub- exist in our language, we would prostantives, meat, locusts, honey, all being, pose the following sentences ; according to Mr. S. himself, (Rule ix. “ Isaiah flourished in the reign of page 125) in the nominative. An ac- Hezekiah ; who being sick unto death, cusative case after a verb can never and having prayed to the Lord, the proaffect the number of that verb. To phet was sent to comfort him, and to convey Mr. S.'s meaning correctly, the announce his recovery.” rule should be: “ when there are two “ A blow was aimed at the duke; nominatives before a verb, and but one but he escaping in due time, the assassin nominative after it; or one nominative was disappointed.” before and two nominatives after it.” How would Mr. S. account for the
P. 102.“ Many of our grammarians | two pronouns who and he, both nomi
natives ; but not nominative to any say in the present? you am, you art, or verb, nor nominative after any verb; you is ; since he considers you as a sinnor yet agreeing in case with their gular? That the plan for which we antecedents; for both their antece- contend will render it necessary to say, dents, viz. Hezekiah and duke are in you were the person” or “ you were the objective?
the man,” is granted; but this inconveAnoiher example we take from the venience admits of no cure, except by New Testament, Luke iii. 21. “ It the adoption of the primitive style, alcame to pass, that Jesus also being. ways using thou to an individual. baptized, and praying, the heaven was Page 105.
Mr. Murray misguides opened, and the Holy Ghost descend- his pupils when he gives as bad Enged,” &c.
lish the following phrase: “Every perThis sentence is complete ; there is son and every occurrence are beheld in no ellipsis; the substantive Jesus is the most favourable light.” Mr. Sutnot nominative to any verb, nor nomi- cliffe's opinion on this phrase is cernative after any verb, nor is it in the tainly deserving of regard. Not being objective case; but is put absolutely fully satisfied in our own mind, we with the two participles being baptized cannot presume to determine the point and praying, and in point of govern- between him and Mr. Murray. ment, is wholly independent of the rest Page 106. The quotation from Baof the sentence. If Mr. S. will not al- con, which Mr. S. vindicates, we think low it to be the case absolute, how will indefensible :-“ the mathematics girhe account for the construction? eth a remedy thereunto, for in them,"
Page 102.“ Dr. Crombie deems it a &c. to consider mathematics first as sinviolation of this rule — when we say, gular, and then, after an interval of four * You was present he would write or five words, as plural, is certainly ob
you were present.' This practice Ijectionable. We think it should alapprehend would occasion a great im- ways have a plural verb and pronoun. propriety.—The alteration would mere- Page 110. “For brevity we say also, ly occasion a change of difficulties for I have not seen him this ten years;' the worse ; for you, applied to the that is, this space of ten years. We second person singular, is but a word consider it highly improper to vindiof courtesy and honour; and a courtesy cate such an evident breach of gramwhich we cannot pay to the singular mar, on the principle of ellipsis. With noun by a plural verb.”
equal propriety might another mainDr. Crombie's opinion we deem per- tain the accuracy of such expressions fectly correct, and Mr. S.'s objections as, this grapes, that books, this pence ; of no importance. To justify the ex- saying, that they are elliptical phrases, pression you was present, is highly im- used for this bunch of grapes, that parproper. Was is either 1st person sin- cel of books, this heap of pence. No elgular or 3d person singular, imperfect lipsis can justify a plain and positive tense, indicative mood, of the verb To violation of the established laws of Be (see Mr. Sutcliffe's Grammar, page grammar. It should unquestionably 62.) If you was be correct, it must be be, these ten years. proved either that
Any is always joined to singular, or the 3d person singular, or the singular number expressed or unelse that was is the second person derstood.” Any may be joined indisplural; or otherwise it must be allow- criminately to singular or plural nouns ; ed, that a verb needs not agree with its and we do not know how Mr. S. can nominative case, either in number or per- prove, that when it is joined with a
The general use of the plural plural, there is any ellipsis. pronoun you to an individual, is evi- Page 114. Other, when used withdently a grammatical impropriety. Mr. out an article, is mostly joined to a Sutcliffe says, Since custom has es- plural noun ;-but when preceded by tablished one anomaly, let us intro- an article, it is joined to the singular." duce another to keep it in coun- Mr. S. seems not aware that other, pretenance. As we use a plural pronoun ceded by the definite article, may be to a single person, let us join a sin- joined to a plural, as properly and as gular verb to that plural pronoun, frequently, as to a singular. and thus violate the first rule of Syn- Page 115, 116. “ I waited on the tax. Besides, if you was be right in the ladies before they left town, and have imperfect tense, what would Mr. s. since heard that they arrived safe."
945 Review-Grammar of the English Language.
946 ** The pronoun they in both the places | say, that whenever an objective case is in the nominative, and in the plural occurs after a transitive verb, it is gonumber, to agree with ladies in the verned by a preposition understood. In same case.” The pronoun they does the last example, whom shall we send, not agree with ladies in the same case ; no preposition whatever is omitted or for ladies is the objective case, govern- understood. ed by the preposition on.
In the 2d example, He whom we Page 120. “ To involve his minister thought would prove, &c. Mr. S. is right in ruin who had been the cause of it. in saying whom ought to be who; not, as Ruin is in the accusative case, and go- he supposes, because it will not admit verned by the verb to involve.” Not a preposition before it; but because it so; ruin is governed not by the verb is nominative to the verb would prove, involve, but by the preposition in. the intervening words we thought, being
Page 123. “ Almost the only point a sort of parenthetical sentence, equiof danger here is of putting whom for valent to, aswe thought, and having no inwho, when the relative follows a noun fluence at all on the rest of the sentence. in the objective case; as in the four “ Whom do men say that I am ? examples which follow : The public Whom do the people say that I am ?” often despise pawnbrokers, whom they In these sentences no preposition at take to be avaricious and sordid cha- all is understood. Mr. S. says: racters.' • He whom we thought would the preposition is prefixed, the sense prove our best friend, neglected us in would determine that the relative trouble.' • Several persons called to- should be written objectively; as, 'For day, whom we took to be foreigners.' whom of the ancient prophets do they • Whom shall we send ? and who will take me?!” In this last clause, the obgo for us? In the three first examples jective whom is undeniably correct, it should be who; and in the last ex- being governed by the preposition for; ample whom, the preposition by is but the construction of this sentence is omitted, as being understood.” wholly dissimilar to that of the former,
Here we cannot but dissent alto- and proves nothing at all as to the gether from Mr. S. except in reference point in dispute. to the second example. Mr. S. would Mr. S. thinks that the English verteach us to say, “ the public often de- sion of these texts may be vindicated pise pawnbrokers, who they take,” &c. from the Greek and Latin. Who is here nominative case. Why? The Greek (Mark viii. 27.) is, Tuva It is not nominative to the following
με λεγεσιν οι ανθρωποι είναι; verb take ; for its nominative is they ;
The Latin (Beza) Quemnam esse me neither is its nominative governed by dicunt homines ? any verb, for there is no verb in the
Now if we literally follow these lansentence that governs a nominative. So that here is a nominative case,uncon- tion; thus, Whom do men say (or re
guages, we shall have a true construcnected with any verb; contrary to one port) me to be? Here whom is properly fundamental principle of English gram- the objective case, governed, not by mar, that every nominative case belongs any preposition, nor by the verb say'; to some verb, expressed or understood; but by the infinitive to be, which having (with the exception of absolute cases
an objective me before it, requires an only) that is, either is the nominative to objective also after it. But when our some verb, or the nominative after translators changed the infinitive
ειναι, some passive or neuter verb. Accordmilar sentences in Greek and Latin, minative
I, it was needful to make a ing to the uniform construction of si-esse, into the indicative am, and the pre
je, me, into the noas well as English, the relative not being nominative to the following verb, correspondent change in the relative is governed by the verb take, and must Tive, quemnam, and render it by the noof course be whom, in the objective minative who; otherwise the connec
Just so also in the 3d and 4th tion of the words is broken, and the of the above examples, where the rela- verb am has a nominative I before it, tive is governed in the objective case while it governs an objective whom afby the verbs took and send.
ter it. If the accusative and infinitive
Mr. S.'s hypothesis about a preposition being in Greek and Lätin had been changed understood wherever the objective is into a nominative and indicative, thus proper, is nugatory. As well might we ÓTI EYW Eoghi, quod ego sum, the relative No. 10.-VOL. I.
also would have been changed, and the Page 125. “ I thought it was him." sentences would have been;
Here Mr. Sutcliffe says both the proΤις λεγεσιν, οι ανθρωποι ότι εγω ειμι; nouns are in the accusative case. Not Quisnam dicunt homines quod ego so: it is not the accusative, but the sum?
nominative to the verb was, which conor in English; Who do men say that I sequently requires a nominative after am?
it; and hence it should be, I thought it Lest any should think that the rela- | was he. Mr. S. seems not aware that tive is governed by the verb say, we
an accusative cannot precede any remark, that this verb has no influence mood, except the infinitive. Change at all on it; and indecd it is one of the verb was into the infinitive to be, those verbs, which cannot govern any and then the construction will be corobjective, unless in nouns of a cognate rect: I thought it to be him ; to be being signification ; e. g. to say a word, to say preceded by one accusative, it, and a speech, to say a lesson: for it would be followed by another accusative, him. nonsense to use it thus; to say a man, “ Whenever the pronoun follows the to say a disciple, to say a prophet, &c. infinitive mood of this verb (Be), it is
Besides, if our version be right, always in the accusative case.? whom do men say that I am? it must be so ; even in the infinitive mood the equally proper to say, him do men say verb to be takes an accusative after it, that I am; or, restoring the words to only when it has an accusative immes their natural order, do men say that I diately before it. Of the three examples am him? where the impropriety is gla- given by Mr. S. the second only is corring, the verb am having a nomina- rect; “ people supposed it to be them." tive before it, and an objective after; Here the verb to be has the accusative and we apprehend it is the transposition it before and the accusative them after of the relative that occasions an over- it; which is right. In the 1st and 3d sight of its proper regimen. It has examples Mr. S. is wrong; “it was been intimated, that our Lord could thought to be him.” The accusative not mean to ask who he was, but what him is improper, because there is no men said about him ; but the difference accusative before the verb; the only between these two inquiries is suffi- pronoun in the preceding part of the ciently obvious, without adopting Mr. sentence being it, which is nominaS.'s scheme. In the former case he tive to the verb was thought. So in would have said, Who am I? in the the 3d example ; “ it was affirmed to latter, Who do men say that I am ?! be her:" the accusative her is wrong,
Page 124. “Who do you think I there being no accusative before the saw, &c. and who do you think I took verb to be, as the pronoun it is nomihim for? In this last example, both native to the verb was affirmed. the relatives should be whom, as they Mr. Murray treats this subject with admit the prepositions, which deter- his usual accuracy and precision, givmine that they should be in the ob- ing a variety of appropriate examples
, jective case.” The first relative should under Rule xi. Note 4, of his large be whom, not because it admits any Grammar. preposition, but because it is governed Page 128. 56 After a verb infinitive, by the verb saw; and the latter rela- the noun or pronoun in the accusative tive should be whom, because it is go- is often understood ; as—“ he cheats;" verned by the preposition for, trans- that is, “he cheats in trade.” On posed to the end of the sentence. this we observe; here is no infinitive
We have been informed that Mr. mood, so that this example cannot ilSutelisle has discovered and corrected lustrate the rule. Even allowing that several of the errors, contained in page he cheats is elliptical, and that the full 123, and some other parts of his gram- sentence would be he cheats in trade; mar; and that he has cancelled some yet trade is not governed by the verb, pages and substituted new ones, in but by the preposition in; trade can. some copies of the book.
But as many not be the object of the verb: it is not copies are in circulation, precisely și- trade that is cheated, but people who milar to that which we have used, in are cheated. which all these errors remain uncancel
Page 129. “ Participles, the same led and uncorrected, we think it highly as Verbs, govern the accusative case; necessary, that they should be thus as, sold to slavery; plunged in despair
; publicly exposed and reprobated. given to hospitality; relieving the dis949 Domestic Self-acting Pump.--History of Astronomy.
950 tressed.”. It is strange that Mr. S. Hungarian machine, or Chomnitz should give four examples, 3 of which Fountain, as it was first called, from furnish no illustration of the rule. The its being applied to hydraulic pursubstantives slavery,despair, hospitality, poses in the mines of that place. in the first 3 examples are governed, Mr. Boswell, a clever mechanic, first not by the participles sold, plunged, improved upon it, by rendering the given, but by the prepositions to and in. pump self-acting ; but a new one, upon « Galloping his horse on the road a better construction, and extremely which leads to London. Here London, simple, has been invented by James road, are both objective cases, in oppo- Hunter, esq. of Thurston, in Scotland, sition to horse." Not so; their case is the principle of which is to raise water not at all dependent on the case of the above the original reservoir, by the word horse ; road is governed by the descent of a certain portion of it. preposition on, and London by the pre- That such a pump is perfectly appliposition to.
cable to all domestic purposes, is Page 133. “ Lord Nelson lay in proved by the fact of a very small one state. It should be laid in state.” | having continued working for three Here again Mr. S. would mislead us. months without being touched, raising Lay is perfectly correct, being the im- about two tons of water in the fourperfect tense of the neuter verb to lie ; and-twenty hours. It acts entirely whereas laid is the imperfect or passive without friction; and by its means the participle of the transitive verb to lay ; rain water collected on the top of a and could not be used on the occasion, house, will pump up a corresponding unless in the passive voice, thus : Lord quantity of pure water from a well as Nelson was laid in state.
deep as the house is high. (To be concluded in our next.)
It is said, however, to be found most useful, where a large body of water is
to be raised through a small height; DOMESTIC SELF-ACTING PUMP. and consequently, it may be judiciously There is scarcely any thing, supposed applied to canal locks to prevent a to lie within the range of scientific waste of water, restoring the water to research, with which mankind have the upper level from the lower locks. been more frequently amused, or in Its principle depends upon the alwhich they have been more uniformly ternate filling and emptying of four disappointed, than the tales circulated reservoirs with air and water, by respecting the perpetual motion. Many means of pipes and valves. a time has this eel of science been almost caught by the tail; but unfortunately it has been so slippery, that HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY. it has hitherto escaped the fingers,
[Continued from col. 614.] even of those who were confident that they held it securely within their grasp. Between the time of Hipparchus and Ages have elapsed since this chimera Ptolemy, the chief observers of any has been pursued o'er bog and note are Agrippa, Menelaus, and brake;" and scarcely any one year Theon; the two latter of whom are passes by, in which we do not find that better known as geometricians than some individual or other has done astronomers. every thing towards the discovery, We remark, however, in this interexcept finding the object he sought. val, the reformation of the calendar by
The domestic self-acting pump, is an Julius Cæsar, and a more exact knowinvention which seems to bear some dis- ledge of the flux and reflux of the tant affinity to this imaginary desidera- ocean. Posidonius, a celebrated Stoic tum; and according to the following philosopher, who lived about eighty statement given of the improvements years before Christ, appears to have it has lately received, it promises to been the first who observed the relation be of more practical utility, than even of these phenomena with the motions the philosopher's stone, or the inex- of the moon; and of which, Pliny, the tinguishable lamp:
naturalist, has given a description, Domestic Pump, self-acting.- A most remarkable for its accuracy. ingenious and highly useful improve- It would be very easy to record the ment has taken place in the appli- names of a great number of Greek and cation of the famous air and water other astronomers, who lived between