The-Grammar-of-English-Grammars-658

Prévia do material em texto

the	critical	belles-lettres	of	Dr.	Blair?	"A	mother	accusing	her	son,	and	accusing
him	of	such	actions,	as	having	first	bribed	judges	to	condemn	her	husband,	and
having	afterwards	poisoned	him,	were	circumstances	that	naturally	raised	strong
prejudices	against	Cicero's	client."—Blair's	Lectures,	p.	274.	Would	they	say.	"A
mother's	accusing	her	son,	&c.,	were	circumstances,"	&c.?	Is	this	their	"common
mode	of	expression?"	and	if	it	is,	do	they	not	make	"common"	what	is	no	better
English	than	the	Doctor's?	If,	to	accuse	a	son,	and	to	accuse	him	greatly,	can	be
considered	different	circumstances	of	the	same	prosecution,	the	sentence	may	be
corrected	thus:	"A	mother's	accusing	of	her	son,	and	her	charging	of	him	with
such	actions,	as	those	of	having	first	bribed	judges	to	condemn	her	husband,	and
having	afterwards	poisoned	him,	were	circumstances	that	naturally	raised	strong
prejudices	against	Cicero's	client."
OBS.	36.—On	several	occasions,	as	in	the	tenth	and	twelfth	observations	on
Rule	4th,	and	in	certain	parts	of	the	present	series,	some	notice	has	been	taken	of
the	equivalence	or	difference	of	meaning,	real	or	supposed,	between	the
construction	of	the	possessive,	and	that	of	an	other	case,	before	the	participle;	or
between	the	participial	and	the	substantive	use	of	words	in	ing.	Dr.	Priestley,	to
whom,	as	well	as	to	Dr.	Lowth,	most	of	our	grammarians	are	indebted	for	some
of	their	doctrines	respecting	this	sort	of	derivatives,	pretends	to	distinguish	them,
both	as	constituting	different	parts	of	speech,	and	as	conveying	different
meanings.	In	one	place,	he	says,	"When	a	word	ending	in	ing	is	preceded	by	an
article,	it	seems	to	be	used	as	a	noun;	and	therefore	ought	not	to	govern	an	other
word,	without	the	intervention	of	a	preposition."—Priestley's	Gram.,	p.	157.
And	in	an	other:	"Many	nouns	are	derived	from	verbs,	and	end	in	ing,	like
participles	of	the	present	tense.	The	difference	between	these	nouns	and
participles	is	often	overlooked,	and	the	accurate	distinction	of	the	two	senses	not
attended	to.	If	I	say,	What	think	you	of	my	horse's	running	to-day,	I	use	the
NOUN	running,	and	suppose	the	horse	to	have	actually	run;	for	it	is	the	same
thing	as	if	I	had	said,	What	think	you	of	the	running	of	my	horse.	But	if	I	say,
What	think	you	of	my	horse	running	to-day,	I	use	the	PARTICIPLE,	and	I	mean
to	ask,	whether	it	be	proper	that	my	horse	should	run	or	not:	which,	therefore,
supposes	that	he	had	not	then	run."—Ib.,	p.	122.	Whatever	our	other	critics	say
about	the	horse	running	or	the	horse's	running,	they	have	in	general	borrowed
from	Priestley,	with	whom	the	remark	originated,	as	it	here	stands.	It	appears
that	Crombie,	Murray,	Maunder,	Lennie,	Bullions,	Ingersoll,	Barnard,	Hiley,	and
others,	approve	the	doctrine	thus	taught,	or	at	least	some	part	of	it;	though	some
of	them,	if	not	all,	thereby	contradict	themselves.
ODS.	37.—By	the	two	examples	here	contrasted,	Priestley	designed	to	establish
a	distinction,	not	for	these	texts	only,	but	for	all	similar	expressions—a
distinction	both	of	the	noun	from	the	participle,	and	of	the	different	senses	which
he	supposed	these	two	constructions	to	exhibit.	In	all	this,	there	is	a	complete
failure.	Yet	with	what	remarkable	ductility	and	implicitness	do	other	professed
critics	take	for	granted	what	this	superficial	philologer	so	hastily	prescribes!	By
acknowledging	with	reference	to	such	an	application	of	them,	that	the	two
constructions	above	are	both	good	English,	our	grammarians	do	but	the	more
puzzle	their	disciples	respecting	the	choice	between	them;	just	as	Priestley
himself	was	puzzled,	when	he	said,	"So	we	may	either	say,	I	remember	it	being
reckoned,	a	great	exploit;	or,	perhaps	more	elegantly,	I	remember	its	being
reckoned,	&c."—Gram.,	p.	70.	Murray	and	others	omit	this	"perhaps,"	and	while
they	allow	both	forms	to	be	good,	decidedly	prefer	the	latter;	but	neither
Priestley,	nor	any	of	the	rest,	ever	pretended	to	discern	in	these	a	difference	of
signification,	or	even	of	parts	of	speech.	For	my	part,	in	stead	of	approving
either	of	these	readings	about	the	"great	exploit,"	I	have	rejected	both,	for
reasons	which	have	already	been	given;	and	now	as	to	the	first	two	forms	of	the
horserace	question,	so	far	as	they	may	strictly	be	taken	for	models,	I	cannot	but
condemn	them	also,	and	for	the	same	reasons:	to	which	reasons	may	be	joined
the	additional	one,	that	neither	expression	is	well	adapted	to	the	sense	which	the
author	himself	gives	to	it	in	his	interpretation.	If	the	Doctor	designed	to	ask,	"Do
you	think	my	horse	ran	well	to-day?"	or,	"Do	you	think	it	proper	for	my	horse	to
run	to-day?"	he	ought	to	have	used	one	or	the	other	of	these	unequivocal	and
unobjectionable	expressions.	There	is	in	fact	between	the	others,	no	such
difference	of	meaning	as	he	imagines;	nor	does	he	well	distinguish	"the	NOUN
running"	from	the	PARTICIPLE	runnning;	because	he	apparently	allows	the
word,	in	both	instances,	to	be	qualified	by	the	adverb	to-day.[422]
OBS.	38.—It	is	clear,	that	the	participle	in	ing	partakes	sometimes	the	nature	of
its	verb	and	an	adjective;	so	that	it	relates	to	a	noun,	like	an	adjective,	and	yet
implies	time,	and,	if	transitive,	governs	an	object,	like	a	verb:	as,	"Horses
running	a	race."	Hence,	by	dropping	what	here	distinguishes	it	as	a	participle,
the	word	may	become	an	adjective,	and	stand	before	its	noun;	as,	"A	running
brook."	So,	too,	this	participle	sometimes	partakes	the	nature	of	its	verb	and	a
noun;	so	that	it	may	be	governed	by	a	preposition,	like	a	noun,	though	in	itself	it
has	no	cases	or	numbers,	but	is	indeclinable:	as	"In	running	a	race."	Hence,
again,	by	dropping	what	distinguishes	it	as	a	participle,	it	may	become	a	noun;
as,	"Running	is	a	safer	sport	than	wrestling."	Now,	if	to	a	participle	we	prefix
something	which	makes	it	an	adjective,	we	also	take	away	its	regimen,	by