"That he permitted not the winds of heaven Visit her face too roughly."—Shakspeare, Hamlet.

RULE XIX.—INFINITIVES. The active verbs, bid, dare, feel, hear, let, make, need, see, and their participles, usually take the Infinitive after them without the preposition to: as, "If he bade thee depart, how darest thou stay?"—"I dare not let my mind be idle as I walk in the streets."—Cotton Mather.

"Thy Hector, wrapt in everlasting sleep, Shall neither hear thee sigh, nor see thee weep." —Pope's Homer.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XIX.

OBS. 1.—Respecting the syntax of the infinitive mood when the particle to is not expressed before it, our grammarians are almost as much at variance, as I have shown them to be, when they find the particle employed. Concerning verbs governed by verbs, Lindley Murray, and some others, are the most clear and positive, where their doctrine is the most obviously wrong; and, where they might have affirmed with truth, that the former verb governs the latter, they only tell us that "the preposition TO is sometimes properly omitted,"—or that such and such verbs "have commonly other verbs following them without the sign TO."—Murray's Gram., p. 183; Alger's, 63; W. Allen's, 167, and others. If these authors meant, that the preposition to is omitted by ellipsis, they ought to have said so. Then the many admirers and remodellers of Murray's Grammar might at least have understood him alike. Then, too, any proper definition of ellipsis must have proved both them and him to be clearly wrong about this construction also. If the word to is really "understood," whenever it is omitted after bid, dare, feel, &c., as some authors, affirm, then is it here the governing word, if anywhere; and this nineteenth rule, however common, is useless to the parser.[414] Then, too, does no English verb ever govern the infinitive without governing also a preposition, "expressed or understood." Whatever is omitted by ellipsis, and truly "understood," really belongs to the grammatical construction; and therefore, if inserted, it cannot be actually improper, though it may be unnecessary. But all our grammarians admit, that to before the infinitive is sometimes "superfluous and improper."—Murray's Gram., p. 183. I imagine, there cannot be any proper ellipsis of to before the infinitive, except in some forms of comparison; because, wherever else it is necessary, either to the sense or to the construction, it ought to be inserted. And wherever the to is rightly used, it is properly the governing word; but where it cannot be inserted without impropriety, it is absurd to say, that it is "understood." The infinitive that is put after such a verb or participle as excludes the preposition to, is governed by this verb or participle, if it is governed by any thing: as,

"To make them do, undo, eat, drink, stand, move, Talk, think, and feel, exactly as he chose."—Pollok, p. 69.

OBS. 2.—Ingersoll, who converted Murray's Grammar into "Conversations," says, "I will just remark to you that the verbs in the infinitive mood, that follow make, need, see, bid, dare, feel, hear, let, and their participles, are always GOVERNED by them."—Conv. on Eng. Gram., p. 120. Kirkham, who pretended to turn the same book into "Familiar Lectures," says, "To, the sign of the infinitive mood, is often understood before the verb; as, 'Let me proceed;' that is, Let me to proceed."—Gram. in Fam. Lect., p. 137. The lecturer, however, does not suppose the infinitive to be here governed by the preposition to, or the verb let, but rather by the pronoun me. For, in an other place, he avers, that the infinitive may be governed by a noun or a pronoun; as, "Let him do it."—Ib., p. 187. Now if the government of the infinitive is to be referred to the objective noun or pronoun that intervenes, none of those verbs that take the infinitive after them without the preposition, will usually be found to govern it, except dare and need; and if need, in such a case, is an auxiliary, no government pertains to that. R. C. Smith, an other modifier of Murray, having the same false notion of ellipsis, says, "To, the usual sign of this mood, is sometimes understood; as, 'Let me go,' instead of, 'Let me to go.'"—Smith's New Gram., p. 65. According to Murray, whom these men profess to follow, let, in all these examples, is an auxiliary, and the verb that follows it, is not in the infinitive mood, but in the imperative. So they severally contradict their oracle, and all are wrong, both he and they! The disciples pretend to correct their master, by supposing "Let me to go," and "Let me to proceed," good English!

OBS. 3.—It is often impossible to say by what the infinitive is governed, according to the instructions of Murray, or according to any author who does not parse it as I do. Nutting says, "The infinitive mode sometimes follows the comparative conjunctions, as, than, and how, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT."—Practical Gram., p. 106. Murray's uncertainty[415] may have led to some part of this notion, but the idea that how is a "comparative conjunction," is a blunder entirely new. Kirkham is so puzzled by "the language of that eminent philologist," that he bolts outright from the course of his guide, and runs he knows not whither; feigning that other able writers have well contended, "that this mood IS NOT GOVERNED by any particular word." Accordingly he leaves his pupils at liberty to "reject the idea of government, as applied to the verb in this mood;" and even frames a rule which refers it always "To some noun or pronoun, as its subject or actor."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 188. Murray teaches that the object of the active verb sometimes governs the infinitive that follows it: as, "They have a desire to improve."—Octavo Gram., p. 184. To what extent, in practice, he would carry this doctrine, nobody can tell; probably to every sentence in which this object is the antecedent term to the preposition to, and perhaps further: as, "I have a house to sell"—Nutting's Gram., p. 106. "I feel a desire to excel." "I felt my heart within me die."—Merrick.

OBS. 4.—Nutting supposes that the objective case before the infinitive always governs it wherever it denotes the agent of the infinitive action; as, "He commands me to write a letter."—Practical Gram., p. 96. Nixon, on the contrary, contends, that the finite verb, in such a sentence, can govern only one object, and that this object is the infinitive. "The objective case preceding it," he says, "is the subject or agent of that infinitive, and not governed by the preceding verb." His example is, "Let them go."—English Parser, p. 97. "In the examples, 'He is endeavouring to persuade them to learn,'—'It is pleasant to see the sun,'—the pronoun them, the adjective pleasant, and the participle endeavouring, I consider as governing the following verb in the infinitive mode."—Cooper's Plain and Pract. Gram., p. 144. "Some erroneously say that pronouns govern the infinitive mode in such examples as this: 'I expected him to be present.' We will change the expression: 'He was expected to be present.' All will admit that to be is governed by was expected. The same verb that governs it in the passive voice, governs it in the active."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 144. So do our professed grammarians differ about the government of the infinitive, even in the most common constructions of it! Often, however, it makes but little difference in regard to the sense, which of the two words is considered the governing or antecedent term; but where the preposition is excluded, the construction seems to imply some immediate influence of the finite verb upon the infinitive.

OBS. 5.—The extent of this influence, or of such government, has never yet been clearly determined. "This irregularity," says Murray, "extends only to active or neuter verbs: ['active and neuter verbs,' says Fisk:] for all the verbs above mentioned, when made passive, require the preposition to before the following verb: as, 'He was seen to go;' 'He was heard to speak;' 'They were bidden to be upon their guard.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 183. Fisk adds with no great accuracy "In the past and future tenses of the active voice also, these verbs generally require the sign to, to be prefixed to the following verbs; as, 'You have dared to proceed without authority;' 'They will not dare to attack you.'"—Gram. Simplified, p. 125. What these gentlemen here call "neuter verbs," are only the two words dare and need, which are, in most cases, active, though not always transitive; unless the infinitive itself can make them so—an inconsistent doctrine of theirs which I have elsewhere refuted. (See Obs. 3rd on Rule 5th.) These two verbs take the infinitive after them without the preposition, only when they are intransitive; while all the rest seem to have this power, only when they are transitive. If there are any exceptions, they shall presently be considered. A more particular examination of the construction proper for the infinitive after each of these eight verbs, seems necessary for a right understanding of the rule.

OBS. 6.—Of the verb BID. This verb, in any of its tenses, when it commands an action, usually governs an object and also an infinitive, which come together; as, "Thou bidst the world adore."—Thomson. "If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing."—2 Kings, v, 13. But when it means, to promise or offer, the infinitive that follows, must be introduced by the preposition to; as, "He bids fair to excel them all"—"Perhaps no person under heaven bids more unlikely to be saved."—Brown's Divinity, p. vii. "And each bade high to win him."—GRANVILLE: Joh. Dict. After the compound forbid, the preposition is also necessary; as, "Where honeysuckles forbid the sun to enter."—Beauties of Shak.. p. 57. In poetry, if the measure happens to require it, the word to is sometimes allowed after the simple verb bid, denoting a command; as,

"Bid me to strike my dearest brother dead, To bring my aged father's hoary head."—Rowe's Lucan, B. i, l. 677.

OBS. 7.—Of the verb DARE. This verb, when used intransitively, and its irregular preterit durst, which is never transitive, usually take the infinitive after them without to; as, "I dare do all that may become a man: Who dares do more, is none."—Shakspeare. "If he durst steal any thing adventurously."—Id. "Who durst defy th' Omnipotent to arms."—Milton. "Like one who durst his destiny control."—Dryden. In these examples, the former verbs have some resemblance to auxiliaries, and the insertion of the preposition to would be improper. But when we take away this resemblance, by giving dare or dared, an objective case, the preposition is requisite before the infinitive; as, "Time! I dare thee to discover Such a youth or such a lover."—Dryden. "He dares me to enter the lists."—Fisk's Gram., p. 125. So when dare itself is in the infinitive mood, or is put after an auxiliary, the preposition is not improper; as, "And let a private man dare to say that it will."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 147. "Would its compiler dare to affront the Deity?"—West's Letters, p. 151. "What power so great, to dare to disobey?"—Pope's Homer. "Some would even dare to die."—Bible. "What would dare to molest him?"—Dr. Johnson. "Do you dare to prosecute such a creature as Vaughan?"—Junius, Let. xxxiii. Perhaps these examples might be considered good English, either with or without the to; but the last one would be still better thus: "Dare you prosecute such a creature as Vaughan?" Dr. Priestley thinks the following sentence would have been better with the preposition inserted: "Who have dared defy the worst."—HARRIS: Priestley's Gram., p. 132. To is sometimes used after the simple verb, in the present tense; as, "Those whose words no one dares to repeat."—Opie, on Lying, p. 147.

"Dare I to leave of humble prose the shore?" —Young, p. 377.

"Against heaven's endless mercies pour'd, how dar'st thou to rebel?" —Id., p. 380.

"The man who dares to be a wretch, deserves still greater pain." —Id., p. 381.

OBS. 8.—Of the verb FEEL. This verb, in any of its tenses, may govern the infinitive without the sign to; but it does this, only when it is used transitively, and that in regard to a bodily perception: as, "I feel it move."—"I felt something sting me." If we speak of feeling any mental affection, or if we use the verb intransitively, the infinitive that follows, requires the preposition; as, "I feel it to be my duty."—"I felt ashamed to ask."—"I feel afraid to go alone."—"I felt about, to find the door." One may say of what is painful to the body, "I feel it to be severe."

OBS. 9.—Of the verb HEAR. This verb is often intransitive, but it is usually followed by an objective case when it governs the infinitive; as. "To hear a bird sing."—Webster. "You have never heard me say so." For this reason, I am inclined to think that those sentences in which it appears to govern the infinitive alone, are elliptical; as, "I have heard tell of such things."—"And I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it."—Gen, xli, 15. Such examples may be the same as. "I have heard people tell,"—"I have heard men say," &c.

OBS. 10.—Of the verb LET. By many grammarians this verb has been erroneously called an auxiliary of the optative mood; or, as Dr. Johnson terms it, "a sign of the optative mood:" though none deny, that it is sometimes also a principal verb. It is, in fact, always a principal verb; because, as we now apply it, it is always transitive. It commonly governs an objective noun or pronoun, and also an infinitive without the sign to; as, "Rise up, let us go."—Mark. "Thou shalt let it rest."—Exodus. But sometimes the infinitive coalesces with it more nearly than the objective, so that the latter is placed after both verbs; as, "The solution lets go the mercury."—Newton. "One lets slip out of his account a good part of that duration."—Locke. "Back! on your lives; let be, said he, my prey."—Dryden. The phrase, let go, is sometimes spoken for, let go your hold; and let be, for let him be, let it be, &c. In such instances, therefore, the verb let is not really intransitive. This verb, even in the passive form, may have the infinitive after it without the preposition to; as, "Nothing is let slip."—Walker's English Particles, p. 165. "They were let go in peace."—Acts, xv, 33. "The stage was never empty, nor the curtain let fall."—Blair's Rhet., p. 459. "The pye's question was wisely let fall without a reply."—L'Estrange. With respect to other passives, Murray and Fisk appear to be right; and sometimes the preposition is used after this one: as, "There's a letter for you, sir, if your name be Horatio, as I am let to know it is."—Shakspeare. Let, when used intransitively, required the preposition to before the following infinitive; as, "He would not let [i. e. forbear] to counsel the king."—Bacon. But this use of let is now obsolete.

OBS. 11.—Of the verb MAKE. This verb, like most of the others, never immediately governs an infinitive, unless it also governs a noun or a pronoun which is the immediate subject of such infinitive; as, "You make me blush."—"This only made the youngster laugh"—Webster's Spelling-Book. "Which soon made the young chap hasten down."—Ib. But in very many instances it is quite proper to insert the preposition where this verb is transitive; as, "He maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak."—Mark, vii, 37. "He makes the excellency of a sentence to consist in four things."—Blair's Rhet., p. 122; Jamieson's, 124. "It is this that makes the observance of the dramatic unities to be of consequence."—Blair's Rhet., p. 464. "In making some tenses of the English verb to consist of principal and auxiliary."—Murray's Gram., p. 76. "When make is intransitive, it has some qualifying word after it, besides the sign of the infinitive; as,—I think he will make out to pay his debts." Formerly, the preposition to was almost always inserted to govern the infinitive after make or made; as, "Lest I make my brother to offend."—1 Cor., viii, 13. "He made many to fall."—Jer., xlvi, 16. Yet, in the following text, it is omitted, even where the verb is meant to be passive: "And it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man."—Dan., vii, 4. This construction is improper, and not free from ambiguity; because stand may be a noun, and made, an active verb governing it. There may also be uncertainty in the meaning, where the insertion of the preposition leaves none in the construction; for made may signify either created or compelled, and the infinitive after it, may denote either the purpose of creation, or the effect of any temporary compulsion: as, "We are made to be serviceable to others."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 167. "Man was made to mourn."—Burns. "Taste was never made to cater for vanity."—Blair. The primitive word make seldom, if ever, produces a construction that is thus equivocal. The infinitive following it without to, always denotes the effect of the making, and not the purpose of the maker; as, "He made his son Skjoeld be received there as king."—North. Antiq., p. 81. But the same meaning may be conveyed when the to is used; as,

"The fear of God is freedom, joy, and peace; And makes all ills that vex us here to cease."—Waller, p. 56.

OBS. 12.—Of the verb NEED. I incline to think, that the word need, whenever it is rightly followed by the infinitive without to, is, in reality an auxiliary of the potential mood; and that, like may, can, and must, it may properly be used, in both the present and the perfect tense, without personal inflection: as, "He need not go, He need not have gone;" where, if need is a principal verb, and governs the infinitive without to, the expressions must be, "He needs not go, He needed not go, or, He has not needed go." But none of these three forms is agreeable; and the last two are never used. Wherefore, in stead of placing in my code of false syntax the numerous examples of the former kind, with which the style of our grammarians and critics has furnished me, I have exhibited many of them, in contrast with others, in the eighth and ninth observations on the Conjugation of Verbs; in which observations, the reader may see what reasons there are for supposing the word need to be sometimes an auxiliary and sometimes a principal verb. Because no other author has yet intentionally recognized the propriety of this distinction, I have gone no farther than to show on what grounds, and with what authority from usage, it might be acknowledged. If we adopt this distinction, perhaps it will be found that the regular or principal verb need always requires, or, at least, always admits, the preposition to before the following infinitive; as, "They need not to be specially indicated."—Adams's Rhet., i, 302. "We need only to remark."—Ib., ii, 224. "A young man needed only to ask himself," &c.—Ib., i, 117. "Nor is it conceivable to me, that the lightning of a Demosthenes could need to be sped upon the wings of a semiquaver."—Ib., ii, 226. "But these people need to be informed."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 220. "No man needed less to be informed."—Ib., p. 175. "We need only to mention the difficulty that arises."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 362. "Can there need to be argument to prove so plain a point?"—Graham's Lect. "Moral instruction needs to have a more prominent place."—Dr. Weeks. "Pride, ambition, and selfishness, need to be restrained."—Id. "Articles are sometimes omitted, where they need to be used."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 197. "Whose power needs not to be dreaded."—Wilson's Hebrew Gram., p. 93. "A workman that needeth not to be ashamed."—2 Tim., ii, 15. "The small boys may have needed to be managed according to the school system."—T. D. Woolsey. "The difficulty of making variety consistent, needs not to disturb him."—Rambler, No. 122. "A more cogent proof needs not to be introduced."—Wright's Gram., p. 66. "No person needs to be informed, that you is used in addressing a single person."—Wilcox's Gram., p. 19. "I hope I need not to advise you further."—Shak., All's Well.

"Nor me, nor other god, thou needst to fear, For thou to all the heavenly host art dear."—Congreve.

OBS. 13.—If need is ever an auxiliary, the essential difference between an auxiliary and a principal verb, will very well account for the otherwise puzzling fact, that good writers sometimes inflect this verb, and sometimes do not; and that they sometimes use to after it, and sometimes do not. Nor do I see in what other way a grammarian can treat it, without condemning as bad English a great number of very common phrases which he cannot change for the better. On this principle, such examples as, "He need not proceed," and "He needs not to proceed," may be perfectly right in either form; though Murray, Crombie,[416] Fisk, Ingersoll, Smith, C. Adams, and many others, pronounce both these forms to be wrong; and unanimously, (though contrary to what is perhaps the best usage,) prefer, "He needs not proceed."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 180.

OBS. 14.—On questions of grammar, the practice of authors ought to be of more weight, than the dogmatism of grammarians; but it is often difficult to decide well by either; because errors and contradictions abound in both. For example: Dr. Blair says, (in speaking of the persons represented by I and thou,) "Their sex needs not be marked."—Rhet., p. 79. Jamieson abridges the work, and says, "needs not to be marked."—Gram. of Rhet., p. 28. Dr. Lowth also says, "needs not be marked."—Gram., p. 21. Churchill enlarges the work, and says, "needs not to be marked."—New Gram., p. 72. Lindley Murray copies Lowth, and says, "needs not be marked."—Gram., 12mo, 2d Ed., p. 39; 23d Ed., p. 51; and perhaps all other editions. He afterwards enlarges his own work, and says, "needs not to be marked."—Octavo Gram., p. 51. But, according to Greenleaf they all express the idea ungrammatically; the only true form being, "Their sex need not be marked." See Gram. Simplified, p. 48. In the two places in which the etymology and the syntax of this verb are examined, I have cited from proper sources more than twenty examples in which to is used after it, and more than twenty others in which the verb is not inflected in the third person singular. In the latter, need is treated as an auxiliary; in the former, it is a principal verb, of the regular construction. If the principal verb need can also govern the infinitive without to, as all our grammarians have supposed, then there is a third form which is unobjectionable, and my pupils may take their choice of the three. But still there is a fourth form which nobody approves, though the hands of some great men have furnished us with examples of it: as, "A figure of thought need not to detort the words from their literal sense."—J. Q. Adams's Lectures, Vol. ii, p. 254. "Which a man need only to appeal to his own feelings immediately to evince."—Clarkson's Prize-Essay on Slavery, p. 106.

OBS. 15.—Webster and Greenleaf seem inclined to justify the use of dare, as well as of need, for the third person singular. Their doctrine is this: "In popular practice it is used in the third person, without the personal termination. Thus, instead of saying, 'He dares not do it;' WE generally say, 'He dare not do it.' In like manner, need, when an active verb, is regular in its inflections; as, 'A man needs more prudence.' But when intransitive, it drops the personal terminations in the present tense, and is followed by a verb without the prefix to; as, 'A man need not be uneasy.'"—Greenleaf s Grammar Simplified, p. 38; Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 178; Improved Gram., 127. Each part of this explanation appears to me erroneous. In popular practice, one shall oftener hear, "He dares n't do it," or even, "You dares n't do it," than, "He dare not do it." But it is only in the trained practice of the schools, that he shall ever hear, "He needs n't do it," or, "He needs not do it." If need is sometimes used without inflection, this peculiarity, or the disuse of to before the subsequent infinitive, is not a necessary result of its "intransitive" character. And as to their latent nominative, "whereof there is no account," or, "whereof there needs no account;" their fact, of which "there is no evidence," or of which "there needs no evidence;" I judge it a remarkable phenomenon, that authors of so high pretensions, could find, in these transpositions, a nominative to "is," but none to "needs!" See a marginal note under Rule 14th, at p. 570.

OBS. 16.—Of the verb SEE. This verb, whenever it governs the infinitive without to, governs also an objective noun or pronoun; as, "See me do it."—"I saw him do it."—Murray. Whenever it is intransitive, the following infinitive must be governed by to; as, "I will see to have it done."—Comly's Gram., p. 98; Greenleaf's, 38. "How could he see to do them?"—Beauties of Shak., p. 43. In the following text, see is transitive, and governs the infinitive; but the two verbs are put so far apart, that it requires some skill in the reader to make their relation apparent: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," &c.—Matt., xxiv, 15. An other scripturist uses the participle, and says—"standing where it ought not," &c.—Mark, xiii, 14. The Greek word is the same in both; it is a participle, agreeing with the noun for abomination. Sometimes the preposition to seems to be admitted on purpose to protract the expression: as,

"Tranio, I saw her coral lips to move, And with her breath she did perfume the air."—Shak.

OBS 17.—A few other verbs, besides the eight which are mentioned in the foregoing rule and remarks, sometimes have the infinitive after them without to. W. Allen teaches, that, "The sign to is generally omitted," not only after these eight, but also after eight others; namely, "find, have, help, mark, observe, perceive, watch, and the old preterit gan, for began; and sometimes after behold and know."—Elements of Gram., p. 167. Perhaps he may have found some instances of the omission of the preposition after all these, but in my opinion his rule gives a very unwarrantable extension to this "irregularity," as Murray calls it. The usage belongs only to particular verbs, and to them not in all their applications. Other verbs of the same import do not in general admit the same idiom. But, by a license for the most part peculiar to the poets, the preposition to is occasionally omitted, especially after verbs equivalent to those which exclude it; as, "And force them sit."—Cowper's Task, p. 46. That is, "And make them sit." According to Churchill, "To use ought or cause in this manner, is a Scotticism: [as,] 'Won't you cause them remove the hares?'—'You ought not walk.' SHAK."—New Gram., p. 317. The verbs, behold, view, observe, mark, watch, and spy, are only other words for see; as, "There might you behold one joy crown an other."—Shak. "There I sat, viewing the silver stream glide silently towards the tempestuous sea."—Walton. "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."—Luke, x, 18.

"Thy drowsy nurse hath sworn she did them spy Come tripping to the room where thou didst lie."—Milton.

———"Nor with less dread the loud Ethereal trumpet from on high 'gan blow."—Id., P. L., vi, 60.

OBS. 18.—After have, help, and find, the infinitive sometimes occurs without the preposition to, but much oftener with it; as, "When enumerating objects which we wish to have appear distinct."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 222. "Certainly, it is heaven upon earth, to have a man's mind move in charity, rest in Providence, and turn upon the poles of truth."—Ld. Bacon. "What wilt thou have me to do?"—Acts, ix, 6. "He will have us to acknowledge him."—Scougal, p. 102. "I had to walk all the way."—Lennie's Gram., p. 85. "Would you have them let go then? No."—Walker's Particles, p. 248. According to Allen's rule, this question is ambiguous; but the learned author explains it in Latin thus: "Placet igitur eos dimitti? Minime." That is, "Would you have them dismissed then? No." Had he meant, "Would you have them to let go then?" he would doubtless have said so. Kirkham, by adding help to Murray's list, enumerates nine verbs which he will have to exclude the sign of the infinitive; as, "Help me do it."—Gram., p. 188. But good writers sometimes use the particle to after this verb; as, "And Danby's matchless impudence helped to support the knave."—DRYDEN: Joh. Dict., w. Help. Dr. Priestley says, "It must, I suppose, be according to the Scotch idiom that Mrs. Macaulay omits it after the verb help: 'To help carry on the new measures of the court.' History, Vol. iv, p. 150."—Priestley's Gram., p. 133. "You will find the difficulty disappear in a short time."—Cobbett's English Gram., 16. "We shall always find this distinction obtain."—Blair's Rhet., p. 245. Here the preposition to might have been inserted with propriety. Without it, a plural noun will render the construction equivocal. The sentence, "You will find the difficulties disappear in a short time," will probably be understood to mean, "You will find that the difficulties disappear in a short time." "I do not find him reject his authority."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 167. Here too the preposition might as well have been inserted. But, as this use of the infinitive is a sort of Latinism, some critics would choose to say, "I do not find that he rejects his authority." "Cyrus was extremely glad to find them have such sentiments of religion."—Rollin, ii, 117. Here the infinitive may be varied either by the participle or by the indicative; as, "to find them having," or, "to find they had." Of the three expressions, the last, I think, is rather the best.

OBS. 19.—When two or more infinitives are connected in the same construction, one preposition sometimes governs them both or all; a repetition of the particle not being always necessary, unless we mean to make the terms severally emphatical. This fact is one evidence that to is not a necessary part of each infinitive verb, as some will have it to be. Examples: "Lord, suffer me first TO go and bury my father."—Matt., viii, 21. "To shut the door, means, TO throw or cast the door to."—Tooke's D. P., ii, 105. "Most authors expect the printer TO spell, point, and digest their copy, that it may be intelligible to the reader."—Printer's Grammar.

"I'll not be made a soft and dull-eyed fool, To shake the head, relent, and sigh, and yield."—Shak.

OBS. 20.—An infinitive that explains an other, may sometimes be introduced without the preposition to; because, the former having it, the construction of the latter is made the same by this kind of apposition: as, "The most accomplished way of using books at present is, TO serve them as some do lords; learn their titles, and, then brag of their acquaintance."—SWIFT: Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 166.

OBS. 21.—After than or as, the sign of the infinitive is sometimes required, and sometimes excluded; and in some instances we can either insert it or not, as we please. The latter term of a comparison is almost always more or less elliptical; and as the nature of its ellipsis depends on the structure of the former term, so does the necessity of inserting or of omitting the sign of the infinitive. Examples: "No desire is more universal than [is the desire] to be exalted and honoured."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 197. "The difficulty is not so great to die for a friend, as [is the difficulty] to find a friend worth dying for."—Id., Art of Thinking, p. 42. "It is no more in one's power to love or not to love, than [it is in one's power] to be in health or out of order."—Ib., p. 45. "Men are more likely to be praised into virtue, than [they are likely] to be railed out of vice."—Ib., p. 48. "It is more tolerable to be always alone, than [it is tolerable] never to be so."—Ib., p. 26. "Nothing [is] more easy than to do mischief [is easy]: nothing [is] more difficult than to suffer without complaining" [is difficult].—Ib., p. 46. Or: "than [it is easy] to do mischief:" &c., "than [it is difficult] to suffer," &c. "It is more agreeable to the nature of most men to follow than [it is agreeable to their nature] to lead."—Ib., p. 55. In all these examples, the preposition to is very properly inserted; but what excludes it from the former term of a comparison, will exclude it from the latter, if such governing verb be understood there: as, "You no more heard me say those words, than [you heard me] talk Greek." It may be equally proper to say, "We choose rather to lead than follow," or, "We choose rather to lead than to follow."—Art of Thinking, p. 37. The meaning in either case is, "We choose to lead rather than we choose to follow." In the following example, there is perhaps an ellipsis of to before cite: "I need do nothing more than simply cite the explicit declarations," &c.—Gurney's Peculiarities, p. 4. So in these: "Nature did no more than furnish the power and means."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. 147.

"To beg, than work, he better understands; Or we perhaps might take him off thy hands." —Pope's Odyssey, xvii, 260.

OBS. 22.—It has been stated, in Obs. 16th on Rule 17th, that good writers are apt to shun a repetition of any part common to two or more verbs in the same sentence; and among the examples there cited is this: "They mean to, and will, hear patiently."—Salem Register. So one might say, "Can a man arrive at excellence, who has no desire to?"—"I do not wish to go, nor expect to."—"Open the door, if you are going to." Answer: "We want to, and try to, but can't." Such ellipses of the infinitive after to, are by no means uncommon, especially in conversation; nor do they appear to me to be always reprehensible, since they prevent repetition, and may contribute to brevity without obscurity. But Dr. Bullions has lately thought proper to condemn them; for such is presumed to have been the design of the following note: "To, the sign of the infinitive, should never be used for the infinitive itself. Thus, 'I have not written, and I do not intend to,' is a colloquial vulgarism for, 'I have not written, and I do not intend to write.'"—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 179. His "Exercises to be corrected," here, are these: "Be sure to write yourself and tell him to. And live as God designed me to."—Ib., 1st Ed., p. 180. It being manifest, that to cannot "be used for"—(that is, in place of—)what is implied after it, this is certainly a very awkward way of hinting "there should never be an ellipsis of the infinitive after to." But, from the false syntax furnished, this appears to have been the meaning intended. The examples are severally faulty, but not for the reason suggested—not because "to" is used for "write" or "live"—not, indeed, for any one reason common to the three—but because, in the first, "to write" and "have not written," have nothing in common which we can omit; in the second, the mood of "tell" is doubtful, and, without a comma after "yourself," we cannot precisely know the meaning; in the third, the mood, the person, and the number of "live," are all unknown. See Note 9th to Rule 17th, above; and Note 2d to the General Rule, below.

OBS. 23.—Of some infinitives, it is hard to say whether they are transitive or intransitive; as, "Well, then, let us proceed; we have other forced marches to make; other enemies to subdue; more laurels to acquire; and more injuries to avenge."—BONAPARTE: Columbian Orator, p. 136. These, without ellipsis, are intransitive; but relatives may be inserted.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XIX.

INFINITIVES AFTER BID, DARE, FEEL, HEAR, LET, &c.

"I dare not to proceed so hastily, lest I should give offence."—Murray's Exercises, p. 63.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the preposition to is inserted before proceed, which follows the active verb dare. But, according to Rule 19th, "The active verbs, bid, dare, feel, hear, let, make, need, see, and their participles, usually take the infinitive after them without the preposition to;" and this is an instance in which the finite verb should immediately govern the infinitive. Therefore, the to should be omitted; thus, "I dare not proceed so hastily," &c.]

"Their character is formed, and made appear."—Butler's Analogy, p. 115.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the preposition to is not inserted between made and appear, the verb is made being passive. But, according to Obs. 5th and 10th on Rule 19th, those verbs which in the active form govern the infinitive without to, do not so govern it when they are made passive, except the verb let. Therefore, to should be here inserted; thus, "Their character is formed, and made to appear."]

"Let there be but matter and opportunity offered, and you shall see them quickly to revive again."—Wisdom of the Ancients, p. 53. "It has been made appear, that there is no presumption against a revelation."—Butler's Analogy, p. 252. "MANIFEST, v. t. To reveal; to make to appear; to show plainly."—Webster's American Dict. "Let him to reign like unto good Aurelius, or let him to bleed like unto Socrates."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 169. "To sing I could not; to complain I durst not."—S. Fothergill. "If T. M. be not so frequently heard pray by them."—Barclay's Works, iii, 132. "How many of your own church members were never heard pray?"—Ib., iii, 133. "Yea, we are bidden pray one for another."—Ib., iii, 145. "He was made believe that neither the king's death, nor imprisonment would help him."—Sheffield's Works, ii, 281. "I felt a chilling sensation to creep over me."—Inst., p. 188. "I dare to say he has not got home yet."—Ib. "We sometimes see bad men to be honoured."—Ib. "I saw him to move."—Felch's Comprehensive Gram., p. 62. "For see thou, ah! see thou a hostile world to raise its terrours."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 167. "But that he make him to rehearse so."—Lily's Gram., p. xv. "Let us to rise."—Fowle's True Eng. Gram., p. 41.

"Scripture, you know, exhorts us to it; Bids us to 'seek peace, and ensue it.'"—Swift's Poems, p. 336.

"Who bade the mud from Dives' wheel To spurn the rags of Lazarus? Come, brother, in that dust we'll kneel, Confessing Heaven that ruled it thus."—Christmas Book.



CHAPTER VII—PARTICIPLES.

The true or regular syntax of the English Participle, as a part of speech distinct from the verb, and not converted into a noun or an adjective, is twofold; being sometimes that of simple relation to a noun or a pronoun that precedes it, and sometimes that of government, or the state of being governed by a preposition. In the former construction, the participle resembles an adjective; in the latter, it is more like a noun, or like the infinitive mood: for the participle after a preposition is governed as a participle, and not as a case.[417] To these two constructions, some add three others less regular, using the participle sometimes as the subject of a finite verb, sometimes as the object of a transitive verb, and sometimes as a nominative after a neuter verb. Of these five constructions, the first two, are the legitimate uses of this part of speech; the others are occasional, modern, and of doubtful propriety.

RULE XX.—PARTICIPLES.

Participles relate to nouns or pronouns, or else are governed by prepositions: as, "Elizabeth's tutor, at one time paying her a visit, found her employed in reading Plato."—Hume. "I have no more pleasure in hearing a man attempting wit and failing, than in seeing a man trying to leap over a ditch and tumbling into it."—Dr. Johnson.

"Now, rais'd on Tyre's sad ruins, Pharaoh's pride Soar'd high, his legions threat'ning far and wide."—Dryden.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

A participle sometimes relates to a preceding phrase or sentence, of which it forms no part; as, "I then quit the society; to withdraw and leave them to themselves, APPEARING to me a duty."—"It is almost exclusively on the ground we have mentioned, that we have heard his being continued in office DEFENDED."—Professors' Reasons, p. 23. (Better, "his continuance in office," or, "the continuing of him in office." See Obs. 18th on Rule 4th.)

"But ever to do ill our sole delight, As being the contrary to his high will."—Milton.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

With an infinitive denoting being or action in the abstract, a participle is sometimes also taken abstractly; (that is, without reference to any particular noun, pronoun, or other subject;) as, "To seem compelled, is disagreeable."—"To keep always praying aloud, is plainly impossible."—"It must be disagreeable to be left pausing[418] on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 323.

"To praise him is to serve him, and fulfill, Doing and suffering, his unquestion'd will." —Cowper, Vol. i, p. 88.

EXCEPTION THIRD.

The participle is often used irregularly in English, as a substitute for the infinitive mood, to which it is sometimes equivalent without irregularity; as, "I saw him enter, or entering"—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 230. "He is afraid of trying, or to try."—Ibid. Examples irregular: "Sir, said I, if the case stands thus, 'tis dangerous drinking:" i.e., to drink.—Collier's Tablet of Cebes. "It will be but ill venturing thy soul upon that:" i.e., to venture.—Bunyan's Law and Grace, p. 27. "Describing a past event as present, has a fine effect in language:" i.e., to describe.—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 93. "In English likewise it deserves remarking:" i.e., to be remarked.—Harris's Hermes, p. 232. "Bishop Atterbury deserves being particularly mentioned:" i.e., to be particularly mentioned.—Blair's Rhet., p. 291. "This, however, is in effect no more than enjoying the sweet that predominates:" i.e., to enjoy.—Campbell's Rhet., p. 43.

"Habits are soon assum'd; but when we strive To strip them off, 'tis being flay'd alive."—Cowper, Vol. i, p. 44

EXCEPTION FOURTH.

An other frequent irregularity in the construction of participles, is the practice of treating them essentially as nouns, without taking from them the regimen and adjuncts of participles; as, "Your having been well educated will be a great recommendation."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 171. (Better: "Your excellent education"—or, "That you have been well educated, will be," &c.) "It arises from sublimity's expressing grandeur in its highest degree."—Blair's Rhet., p. 29. "Concerning the separating by a circumstance, words intimately connected."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. ii, p. 104. "As long as there is any hope of their keeping pace with them."—Literary Convention, p. 114. "Which could only arise from his knowing the secrets of all hearts."—West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 180. "But this again is talking quite at random."—Butler's Analogy, p. 146.

"My being here it is, that holds thee hence."—Shak.

"Such, but by foils, the clearest lustre see, And deem aspersing others, praising thee."—Savage, to Walpole.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XX.

OBS. 1.—To this rule, I incline to think, there are properly no other exceptions than the first two above; or, at least, that we ought to avoid, when we can, any additional anomalies. Yet, not to condemn with unbecoming positiveness what others receive for good English, I have subjoined two items more, which include certain other irregularities now very common, that, when examples of a like form occur, the reader may parse them as exceptions, if he does not choose to censure them as errors. The mixed construction in which participles are made to govern the possessive case, has already been largely considered in the observations on Rule 4th. Murray, Allen, Churchill, and many other grammarians, great and small, admit that participles may be made the subjects or the objects of verbs, while they retain the nature, government, and adjuncts, of participles; as, "Not attending to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 200; Comly's Gram., 188; Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., 170. "Polite is employed to signify their being highly civilized.'"—Blair's Rhet., p. 219. "One abhors being in debt."—Ib., p. 98; Jamieson's Rhet., 71; Murray's Gram., 144. "Who affected being a fine gentleman so unmercifully."—Spect., No. 496. "The minister's being attached to the project, prolonged their debate."—Nixon's Parser, p. 78. "It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that acting thus would gratify one passion; not acting, or acting otherwise, would gratify another."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 109. "But further, cavilling and objecting upon any subject is much easier than clearing up difficulties."—Bp. Butler's Charge to the Clergy of Durham, 1751.

OBS. 2.—W. Allen observes, "The use of the participle as a nominative, is one of the peculiarities of our language."—Elements of Gram., p. 171. He might have added, that the use of the participle as an objective governed by a verb, as a nominative after a verb neuter, or as a word governing the possessive, is also one of the peculiarities of our language, or at least an idiom adopted by no few of its recent writers. But whether any one of these four modern departures from General Grammar ought to be countenanced by us, as an idiom that is either elegant or advantageous, I very much doubt. They are all however sufficiently common in the style of reputable authors; and, however questionable their character, some of our grammarians seem mightily attached to them all. It becomes me therefore to object with submission. These mixed and irregular constructions of the participle, ought, in my opinion, to be generally condemned as false syntax; and for this simple reason, that the ideas conveyed by them may generally, if not always, be expressed more briefly, and more elegantly, by other phraseology that is in no respect anomalous. Thus, for the examples above: "Inattention to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."—"Polite is employed to signify a high degree of civilization;" or, "that they are highly civilized."—"One abhors debt."—"Who affected the fine gentleman so unmercifully."—"The minister's partiality to the project, prolonged their debate."—"It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that to act thus, would gratify one passion; and that not to act, or to act otherwise, would gratify another."—"But further, to cavil and object, upon any subject, is much easier than to clear up difficulties." Are not these expressions much better English than the foregoing quotations? And if so, have we not reason to conclude that the adoption of participles in such instances is erroneous and ungrammatical?

OBS. 3.—In Obs. 17th on Rule 4th, it was suggested, that in English the participle, without governing the possessive case, is turned to a greater number and variety of uses, than in any other language. This remark applies mainly to the participle in ing. Whether it is expedient to make so much of one sort of derivative, and endeavour to justify every possible use of it which can be plausibly defended, is a question well worthy of consideration. We have already converted this participle to such a multiplicity of purposes, and into so many different parts of speech, that one can well-nigh write a chapter in it, without any other words. This practice may have added something to the copiousness and flexibility of the language, but it certainly has a tendency to impair its strength and clearness. Not every use of participles is good, for which there may be found precedents in good authors. One may run to great excess in the adoption of such derivatives, without becoming absolutely unintelligible, and without violating any rule of our common grammars. For example, I may say of somebody, "This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate." Now, in what other language than ours, can a string of words anything like the following, come so near to a fair and literal translation of this long sentence? "This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating." Here are not all the uses to which our writers apply the participle in ing, but there would seem to be enough, without adding others that are less proper.

OBS. 4.—The active participles, admitting, allowing, considering, granting, speaking, supposing, and the like, are frequently used in discourse so independently, that they either relate to nothing, or to the pronoun I or we understood; as, "Granting this to be true, what is to be inferred from it?"—Murray's Gram., p. 195. This may be supposed to mean, "I, granting this to be true, ask what is to be inferred from it?" "The very chin was, modestly speaking, as long as my whole face."—Addison. Here the meaning may be, "I, modestly speaking, say." So of the following examples: "Properly speaking, there is no such thing as chance."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 172. "Because, generally speaking, the figurative sense of a word is derived from its proper sense."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 190. "But, admitting that two or three of these offend less in their morals than in their writings, must poverty make nonsense sacred?"—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 7. Some grammarians suppose such participles to be put absolute in themselves, so as to have no reference to any noun or pronoun; others, among whom are L. Murray and Dr. James P. Wilson, suppose them to be put absolute with a pronoun understood. On the former supposition, they form an other exception to the foregoing rule; on the latter, they do not: the participle relates to the pronoun, though both be independent of the rest of the sentence. If we supply the ellipsis as above, there is nothing put absolute.

OBS. 5.—Participles are almost always placed after the words on which their construction depends, and are distinguished from adjectives by this position; but when other words depend on the participle, or when several participles have the same construction, the whole phrase may come before the noun or pronoun: as, "Leaning my head upon my hand, I began to figure to myself the miseries of confinement."—Sterne.

"Immured in cypress shades, a sorcerer dwells."—Milton.

"Brib'd, bought, and bound, they banish shame and fear; Tell you they're stanch, and have a soul sincere."—Crabbe.

OBS. 6.—When participles are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb, they become adjectives; and, as such, they cannot govern an object after them. The following construction is therefore inaccurate: "When Caius did any thing unbecoming his dignity."—Jones's Church History, i, 87. "Costly and gaudy attire, unbecoming godliness."—Extracts, p. 185. Such errors are to be corrected by Note 15th to Rule 9th, or by changing the particle un to not: as, "Unbecoming to his dignity;" or, "Not becoming his dignity."

OBS. 7.—An imperfect or a preperfect participle, preceded by an article, an adjective, or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, becomes a verbal or participial noun; and, as such, it cannot with strict propriety, govern an object after it. A word which may be the object of the participle in its proper construction, requires the preposition of, to connect it with the verbal noun; as, 1. THE PARTICIPLE: "Worshiping idols, the Jews sinned."—"Thus worshiping idols,—In worshiping idols,—or, By worshiping idols, they sinned." 2. THE VERBAL NOUN: "The worshiping of idols,—Such worshiping of idols,—or, Their worshiping of idols, was sinful."—"In the worshiping of idols, there is sin."

OBS. 8.—It is commonly supposed that these two modes of expression are, in very many instances, equivalent to each other in meaning, and consequently interchangeable. How far they really are so, is a question to be considered. Example: "But if candour be a confounding of the distinctions between sin and holiness, a depreciating of the excellence of the latter, and at the same time a diminishing of the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."—The Friend, iv, 108. Here the nouns, distinctions, excellence, and evil, though governed by of, represent the objects of the forenamed actions; and therefore they might well be governed by confounding, depreciating, and diminishing, if these were participles. But if, to make them such, we remove the article and the preposition, the construction forsakes our meaning; for be confounding, (be) depreciating, and (be) diminishing, seem rather to be verbs of the compound form; and our uncertain nominatives after be, thus disappear in the shadow of a false sense. But some sensible critics tell us, that this preposition of should refer rather to the agent of the preceding action, than to its passive object; so that such a phrase as, "the teaching of boys," should signify rather the instruction which boys give, than that which they receive. If, for the sake of this principle, or for any other reason, we wish to avoid the foregoing phraseology, the meaning may be expressed thus: "But if your candour confound the distinctions between sin and holiness; if it depreciate the excellence of the latter, and at the same time diminish the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."

OBS. 9.—When the use of the preposition produces ambiguity or harshness, let a better expression be sought. Thus the sentence, "He mentions Newton's writing of a commentary," is not entirely free from either of these faults. If the preposition be omitted, the word writing will have a double construction, which is inadmissible, or at least objectionable. Some would say, "He mentions Newton writing a commentary." This, though not uncommon, is still more objectionable because it makes the leading word in sense the adjunct in construction. The meaning may be correctly expressed thus: "He mentions that Newton wrote a commentary." "Mr. Dryden makes a very handsome observation on Ovid's writing a letter from Dido to AEneas."—Spect., No. 62; Campbell's Rhet., p. 265; Murray's Key, ii, 253. Here the word writing is partly a noun and partly a participle. If we make it wholly a noun, by saying, "on Ovid's writing of a letter," or wholly a participle, by saying, "on Ovid writing a letter;" it may be doubted, whether we have effected any improvement. And again, if we adopt Dr. Lowth's advice, "Let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction;" we must make some change; and therefore ought perhaps to say; "on Ovid's conceit of writing a letter from Dido to AEneas." This is apparently what Addison meant, and what Dryden remarked upon; the latter did not speak of the letter itself, else the former would have said, "on Ovid's letter from Dido to AEneas."

OBS. 10.—When a needless possessive, or a needless article, is put before the participle, the correction is to be made, not by inserting of, but by expunging the article, according to Note 16th to Rule 1st, or the possessive, according to Note 5th to Rule 4th. Example: "By his studying the Scriptures he became wise."—Lennie's Gram., p. 91. Here his serves only to render the sentence incorrect; yet this spurious example is presented by Lennie to prove that a participle may take the possessive case before it, when the preposition of is not admissible after it. So, in stead of expunging one useless word, our grammarians often add an other and call the twofold error a correction; as, "For his avoiding of that precipice, he is indebted to his friend's care."—Murray's Key, ii, 201. Or worse yet: "It was from our misunderstanding of the directions that we lost our way."—Ibid. Here, not our and of only, but four other words, are worse than useless. Again: "By the exercising of our judgment, it is improved. Or thus: By exercising our judgment, it is improved."—Comly's Key in his Gram., 12th Ed., p. 188. Each of these pretended corrections is wrong in more respects than one. Say, "By exercising our judgement, we improve it" Or, "Our judgement is improved by being exercised" Again: "The loving of our enemies is a divine command; Or, loving our enemies [is a divine command]."—Ibid. Both of these are also wrong. Say, "'Love your enemies,' is a divine command." Or, "We are divinely commanded to love our enemies." Some are apt to jumble together the active voice and the passive, and thus destroy the unity even of a short sentence; as, "By exercising our memories, they are improved."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 226 and 195. "The error might have been avoided by repeating the substantive."—Murray's Gram., p. 172. "By admitting such violations of established grammatical distinctions, confusion would be introduced."—Ib., p. 187. In these instances, we have an active participle without an agent; and this, by the preposition by, is made an adjunct to a passive verb. Even the participial noun of this form, though it actually drops the distinction of voice, is awkward and apparently incongruous in such a relation.

OBS. 11.—When the verbal noun necessarily retains any adjunct of the verb or participle, it seems proper that the two words be made a compound by means of the hyphen: as, "Their hope shall be as the giving-up of the ghost."—Job, xi, 20. "For if the casting-away of them be the reconciling of the world."—Rom., xi, 15. "And the gathering-together of the waters called he seas."—Gen., i, 10. "If he should offer to stop the runnings-out of his justice."—Law and Grace, p. 26. "The stopping-short before the usual pause in the melody, aids the impression that is made by the description of the stone's stopping-short.'"—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 106. I do not find these words united in the places referred to, but this is nevertheless their true figure. Our authors and printers are lamentably careless, as well as ignorant, respecting the figure of words: for which part of grammar, see the whole of the third chapter, in Part First of this work; also observations on the fourth rule of syntax, from the 30th to the 35th. As certain other compounds may sometimes be broken by tmesis, so may some of these; as, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is."—Heb., x, 23. Adverbs may relate to participles, but nouns require adjectives. The following phrase is therefore inaccurate: "For the more easily reading of large numbers." Yet if we say, "For reading large numbers the more easily," the construction is different, and not inaccurate. Some calculator, I think, has it, "For the more easily reading large numbers." But Hutton says, "For the more easy reading of large numbers."—Hutton's Arith., p. 5; so Babcock's, p. 12. It would be quite as well to say, "For the greater ease in reading large numbers."

OBS. 12.—Many words of a participial form are used directly as nouns, without any article, adjective, or possessive case before them, and without any object or adjunct after them. Such is commonly the construction of the words spelling, reading, writing, ciphering, surveying, drawing, parsing, and many other such names of actions or exercises. They are rightly put by Johnson among "nouns derived from verbs;" for, "The [name of the] action is the same with the participle present, as loving, frighting, fighting, striking."—Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 10. Thus: "I like writing."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 171. "He supposed, with them, that affirming and denying were operations of the mind."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 35. "'Not rendering,' said Polycarp the disciple of John, 'evil for evil, or railing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for cursing."—Dymond, on War. Against this practice, there is seldom any objection; the words are wholly nouns, both in sense and construction. We call them participial nouns, only because they resemble participles in their derivation; or if we call them verbal nouns, it is because they are derived from verbs. But we too frequently find those which retain the government and the adjuncts of participles, used as nouns before or after verbs; or, more properly speaking, used as mongrels and nondescripts, a doubtful species, for which there is seldom any necessity, since the infinitive, the verbal or some other noun, or a clause introduced by the conjunction that, will generally express the idea in a better manner: as, "Exciting such disturbances, is unlawful." Say rather, "To excite such disturbances,—The exciting of such disturbances,—The excitation of such disturbances,—or, That one should excite such disturbances, is unlawful."

OBS. 13.—Murray says, "The word the, before the active participle, in the following sentence, and in all others of a similar construction, is improper, and should be omitted: 'The advising, or the attempting, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful.' It should be, 'Advising or attempting to excite disturbances.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 195. But, by his own showing, "the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive."—Ib., p. 192. And substantives, or nouns, by an other of his notes, can govern the infinitive mood, just as well as participles; or just as well as the verbs which he thinks would be very proper here; namely, "To advise or attempt to excite such disturbances."—Ib., p. 196. It would be right to say, "Any advice, or attempt, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful." And I see not that he has improved the text at all, by expunging the article. Advising and attempting, being disjunct nominatives to is, are nothing but nouns, whether the article be used or not; though they are rather less obviously such without it, and therefore the change is for the worse.

OBS. 14.—Lennie observes, "When a preposition"—(he should have said, When an other preposition—) "follows the participle, of is inadmissible; as, His depending on promises proved his ruin. His neglecting to study when young, rendered him ignorant all his life."—Prin. of E. Gram., 5th Ed., p. 65; 13th Ed., 91. Here on and to, of course, exclude of; but the latter may be changed to of, which will turn the infinitive into a noun: as, "His neglecting of study," &c. "Depending" and "neglecting," being equivalent to dependence and neglect, are participial nouns, and not "participles." Professor Bullions, too, has the same faulty remark, examples and all; (for his book, of the same title, is little else than a gross plagiarism from Lennie's;) though he here forgets his other erroneous doctrines, that, "A preposition should never be used before the infinitive," and that, "Active verbs do not admit a preposition after them." See Bullions's Prin. of E. Gram., pp. 91, 92, and 107.

OBS. 15.—The participle in ing is, on many occasions, equivalent to the infinitive verb, so that the speaker or writer may adopt either, just as he pleases: as, "So their gerunds are sometimes found having [or to have] an absolute or apparently neuter signification."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 234. "With tears that ceas'd not flowing" [or to flow].—Milton. "I would willingly have him producing [produce, or to produce] his credentials."—Barclay's Works, iii, 273. There are also instances, and according to my notion not a few, in which the one is put improperly for the other. The participle however is erroneously used for the infinitive much oftener than the infinitive for the participle. The lawful uses of both are exceedingly numerous; though the syntax of the participle, strictly speaking, does not include its various conversions into other parts of speech. The principal instances of regular equivalence between infinitives and participles, may be reduced to the following heads:

1. After the verbs see, hear, and feel, the participle in ing, relating to the objective, is often equivalent to the infinitive governed by the verb; as, "I saw him running"—"I heard it howling."—W. Allen. "I feel the wind blowing." Here the verbs, run, howl, and blow, might be substituted. 2. After intransitive verbs signifying to begin or to continue, the participle in ing, relating to the nominative, may be used in stead of the infinitive connected to the verb; as, "The ass began galloping with all his might."—Sandford and Merton. "It commenced raining very hard."—Silliman. "The steamboats commenced running on Saturday."—Daily Advertiser. "It is now above three years since he began printing."—Dr. Adam's Pref. to Rom. Antiq. "So when they continued asking him."—John, viii, 7. Greek, "[Greek: Os epemenon erotontes auton.]" Latin, "Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum."—Vulgate. "Cum autem perseverarent eum interrogare."—Beza. "Then shall ye continue following the Lord your God."—1 Sam., xii, 14. "Eritis sequentes Dominum Deum vestrum."—Vulgate. "As she continued praying before the Lord."—1 Sam., i, 12. "Cum ilia multiplicaret preces coram Domino."—Vulgate. "And they went on beating down one an other."—2 Sam., xiv, 16. "Make the members of them go on rising and growing in their importance."—Blair's Rhet., p. 116. "Why do you keep teasing me?"

3. After for, in, of, or to, and perhaps some other prepositions, the participle may in most cases be varied by the infinitive, which is governed by to only; as, "We are better fitted for receiving the tenets and obeying the precepts of that faith which will make us wise unto salvation."—West's Letters, p. 51. That is—"to receive the tenets and obey the precepts." "Men fit for fighting, practised in fighting, proud of fighting, accustomed to fighting."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 172. That is, "fit to fight," &c. "What is the right path, few take the trouble of inquiring."—Murray's Key, 8vo. ii, 235. Better, perhaps:—"few take the trouble to inquire."

OBS. 16.—One of our best grammarians says, "The infinitive, in the following sentences, should be exchanged for the participle: 'I am weary to bear them.' Is. i, 14. 'Hast thou, spirit, perform'd to point the tempest?' Shak."—Allen's Gram., p. 172. This suggestion implies, that the participle would be here not only equivalent to the infinitive in sense, but better in expression. It is true, the preposition to does not well express the relation between weary and bear; and, doubtless, some regard should be had to the meaning of this particle, whenever it is any thing more than an index of the mood. But the critic ought to have told us how he would make these corrections. For in neither case does the participle alone appear to be a fit substitute for the infinitive, either with or without the to; and the latter text will scarcely bear the participle at all, unless we change the former verb; as, "Hast thou, spirit, done pointing the tempest?" The true meaning of the other example seems somewhat uncertain. The Vulgate has it, "Laboravi sustinens," "I have laboured bearing them;" the French Bible, "Je suis las de les souffrir," "I am tired of bearing them;" the Septuagint, "[Greek: Ouketi anaeso tas hamartias humon,]" "I will no more forgive your sins."

OBS. 17.—In the following text, the infinitive is used improperly, nor would the participle in its stead make pure English: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, to have been continually before me."—Ps. 1. 8. According to the French version, "to have been" should be "which are;" but the Septuagint and the Vulgate take the preceding noun for the nominative, thus: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, but thy burnt-offerings are continually before me."

OBS. 18.—As the preposition to before the infinitive shows the latter to be "that towards which the preceding verb is directed," verbs of desisting, omitting, preventing, and avoiding, are generally found to take the participle after them, and not the infinitive; because, in such instances, the direction of effort seems not to be so properly to, or towards, as from the action.[419] Where the preposition from is inserted, (as it most commonly is, after some of these verbs.) there is no irregularity in the construction of the participle; but where the participle immediately follows the verb, it is perhaps questionable whether it ought to be considered the object of the verb, or a mere participle relating to the nominative which precedes. If we suppose the latter, the participle may be parsed by the common rule; if the former, it must be referred to the third exception above. For example:

1. After verbs of DESISTING; as, "The Cryer used to proclaim, DIXERUNT, i. e. They have done speaking."—Harris's Hermes, p. 132. "A friend is advised to put off making love to Lalage."—Philological Museum, i, 446. "He forbore doing so, on the ground of expediency."—The Friend, iv, 35. "And yet architects never give over attempting to reconcile these two incompatibles."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 338. "Never to give over seeking and praying for it."—N. Y. Observer. "Do not leave off seeking."—President Edwards. "Then Satan hath done flattering and comforting."—Baxter. "The princes refrained talking."—Job, xxix, 9. "Principes cessabant loqui."—Vulgate. Here it would be better to say, "The princes refrained from talking." But Murray says, "From seems to be superfluous after forbear: as, 'He could not forbear from appointing the pope,' &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 203. But "forbear to appoint" would be a better correction; for this verb is often followed by the infinitive; as, "Forbear to insinuate."—West's Letters, p. 62. "And he forbare to go forth."—1 Sam., xxiii, 13. The reader will observe, that, "never to give over" or "not to leave off," is in fact the same thing as to continue; and I have shown by the analogy of other languages, that after verbs of continuing the participle is not an object of government; though possibly it may be so, in these instances, which are somewhat different. 2. After verbs of OMITTING; as, "He omits giving an account of them."—Tooke's Diversions of Purley, i, 251. I question the propriety of this construction; and yet, "omits to give" seems still more objectionable. Better, "He omits all account of them." Or, "He neglects to give, or forbears to give, any account of them." L. Murray twice speaks of apologizing, "for the use he has made of his predecessors' labours, and for omitting to insert their names."—Octavo Gram., Pref., p. vii; and Note, p. 73. The phrase, "omitting to insert," appears to me a downright solecism; and the pronoun their is ambiguous, because there are well-known names both for the men and for their labours, and he ought not to have omitted either species wholly, as he did. "Yet they absolutely refuse doing so, one with another."—Harris's Hermes, p. 264. Better, "refuse to do so." "I had as repeatedly declined going."—Leigh Hunt's Byron, p. 15.

3. After verbs of PREVENTING; as, "Our sex are happily prevented from engaging in these turbulent scenes."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 74. "To prevent our frail natures from deviating into bye paths [write by-paths] of error."—Ib., p. 100. "Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly."—Blair's Rhet., p. 99; Murray's Gram., p. 303; Jamieson's Rhet., p. 72. This construction, though very common, is palpably wrong: because its most natural interpretation is, "Prudence improperly prevents our speech or action." These critics ought to have known enough to say, "Prudence prevents us from speaking or acting improperly." "This, however, doth not hinder pronunciation to borrow from singing."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 70. Here the infinitive is used, merely because it does not sound well to say, "from borrowing from singing;" but the expression might very well be changed thus, "from being indebted to singing." "'This by no means hinders the book to be a useful one.'—Geddes. It should be, 'from being.'"—Churchill's Gram., p. 318.

4. After verbs of AVOIDING: as, "He might have avoided treating of the origin of ideas."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 28. "We may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 281. "But carefully avoid being at any time ostentatious and affected."—Blair's Rhet., p. 233. "Here I cannot avoid mentioning[420] the assistance I have received."—Churchill's Gram., p. iv. "It is our duty to avoid leading others into temptation,"—West's Letters, p. 33. "Nay, such a garden should in some measure avoid imitating nature."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 251. "I can promise no entertainment to those who shun thinking."—Ib., i, 36. "We cannot help being of opinion."—ENCYC. BRIT. Murray's Gram., p. 76. "I cannot help being of opinion."—Blair's Rhet., p. 311. "I cannot help mentioning here one character more."—Hughes. Spect., No. 554. "These would sometimes very narrowly miss being catched away."—Steele. "Carleton very narrowly escaped being taken."—Grimshaw's Hist., p. 111. Better, "escaped from being taken;"—or, "escaped capture."

OBS. 19.—In sentences like the following, the participle seems to be improperly made the object of the verb: "I intend doing it."—"I remember meeting him." Better, "I intend to do it."—"I remember to have met him." According to my notion, it is an error to suppose that verbs in general may govern participles. If there are any proper instances of such government, they would seem to be chiefly among verbs of quitting or avoiding. And even here the analogy of General Grammar gives countenance to a different solution; as, "They left beating of Paul."—Acts, xxi, 32. Better, "They left beating Paul;"—or, "They quit beating Paul." Greek, "[Greek: Epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon.]" Latin, "Cessaverunt percutientes Paulum."—Montanus. "Cessarunt coedere Paulum."—Beza. "Cessaverunt percutere Paulum."—Vulgate. It is true, the English participle in ing differs in some respects from that which usually corresponds to it in Latin or Greek; it has more of a substantive character, and is commonly put for the Latin gerund. If this difference does not destroy the argument from analogy, the opinion is still just, that left and quit are here intransitive, and that the participle beating relates to the pronoun they. Such is unequivocally the construction of the Greek text, and also of the literal Latin of Arias Montanus. But, to the mere English grammarian, this method of parsing will not be apt to suggest itself: because, at first sight, the verbs appear to be transitive, and the participle in ing has nothing to prove it an adjunct of the nominative, and not the object of the verb—unless, indeed, the mere fact that it is a participle, is proof of this.

OBS. 20.—Our great Compiler, Murray, not understanding this construction, or not observing what verbs admit of it, or require it, has very unskillfully laid it down as a rule, that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb, expressed or understood: as, 'By promising much and performing but little, we become despicable.' 'He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 194.[421] This very popular author seems never to have known that participles, as such, may be governed in English by prepositions. And yet he knew, and said, that "prepositions do not, like articles and pronouns, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive."—Ibid. This he avouches in the same breath in which he gives that "nature" to a participle and its adverb! For, by a false comma after much, he cuts his first "substantive phrase" absurdly in two; and doubtless supposes a false ellipsis of by before the participle performing. Of his method of resolving the second example, some notice has already been taken, in Observations 4th and 5th on Rule 5th. Though he pretends that the whole phrase is in the objective case, "the truth is, the assertion grammatically affects the first word only;" which in one aspect he regards as a noun, and in an other as a participle: whereas he himself, on the preceding page, had adopted from Lowth a different doctrine, and cautioned the learner against treating words in ing, "as if they were of an amphibious species, partly nouns and partly verbs;" that is, "partly nouns and partly participles;" for, according to Murray, Lowth, and many others, participles are verbs. The term, "substantive phrase," itself a solecism, was invented merely to cloak this otherwise bald inconsistency. Copying Lowth again, the great Compiler defines a phrase to be "two or more words rightly put together;" and, surely, if we have a well-digested system of grammar, whatsoever words are rightly put together, may be regularly parsed by it. But how can one indivisible word be consistently made two different parts of speech at once? And is not this the situation of every transitive participle that is made either the subject or the object of a verb? Adjuncts never alter either the nature or the construction of the words on which they depend; and participial nouns differ from participles in both. The former express actions as things; the latter generally attribute them to their agents or recipients.

OBS. 21.—The Latin gerund is "a kind of verbal noun, partaking of the nature of a participle."—Webster's Dict. "A gerund is a participial noun, of the neuter gender, and singular-number, declinable like a substantive, having no vocative, construed like a substantive, and governing the case of its verb."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 70. In the Latin gerund thus defined, there is an appearance of ancient classical authority for that "amphibious species" of words of which so much notice has already been taken. Our participle in ing, when governed by a preposition, undoubtedly corresponds very nearly, both in sense and construction, to this Latin gerund; the principal difference being, that the one is declined, like a noun, and the other is not. The analogy, however, is but lamely maintained, when we come to those irregular constructions in which the participle is made a half-noun in English. It is true, the gerund of the nominative case may be made the subject of a verb in Latin; but we do not translate it by the English participle, but rather by the infinitive, or still oftener by the verb with the auxiliary must: as, "Vivendum est mihi recte, I must live well."—Grant's L. Gram., p. 232. This is better English than the nearer version, "Living correctly is necessary for me;" and the exact imitation, "Living is to me correctly," is nonsense. Nor does the Latin gerund often govern the genitive like a noun, or ever stand as the direct object of a transitive verb, except in some few doubtful instances about which the grammarians dispute. For, in fact, to explain this species of words, has puzzled the Latin grammarians about as much as the English; though the former do not appear to have fallen into those palpable self-contradictions which embarrass the instructions of the latter.

OBS. 22.—Dr. Adam says, "The gerund in English becomes a substantive, by prefixing the article to it, and then it is always to be construed with the preposition of; as, 'He is employed in writing letters,' or, 'in the writing of letters:' but it is improper to say, 'in the writing letters,' or, 'in writing of letters.'"—Latin and English Gram., p. 184. This doctrine is also taught by Lowth, Priestley, Murray, Comly, Chandler, and many others; most of whom extend the principle to all participles that govern the possessive case; and they might as well have added all such as are made either the subjects or the objects of verbs, and such as are put for nominatives after verbs neuter. But Crombie, Allen, Churchill, S. S. Greene, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and some others, teach that participles may perform these several offices of a substantive, without dropping the regimen and adjuncts of participles. This doctrine, too, Murray and his copyists absurdly endeavour to reconcile with the other, by resorting to the idle fiction of "substantive phrases" endued with all these powers: as, "His being at enmity with Caesar was the cause of perpetual discord."—Crombie's Treatise, p. 237; Churchill's Gram., p. 141. "Another fault is allowing it to supersede the use of a point."— Churchill's Gram., p. 372. "To be sure there is a possibility of some ignorant reader's confounding the two vowels in pronunciation."—Ib., p. 375. It is much better to avoid all such English as this. Say, rather, "His enmity with Caesar was the cause of perpetual discord."—"An other fault is the allowing of it to supersede the use of a point."—"To be sure, there is a possibility that some ignorant reader may confound the two vowels, in pronunciation."

OBS. 23.—In French, the infinitive is governed by several different prepositions, and the gerundive by one only, the preposition en,—which, however, is sometimes suppressed; as, "en passant, en faisant,—il alloit courant."—Traite des Participes, p. 2. In English, the gerundive is governed by several different prepositions, and the infinitive by one only, the preposition to,—which, in like manner, is sometimes suppressed; as, "to pass, to do,—I saw him run." The difficulties in the syntax of the French participle in ant, which corresponds to ours in ing, are apparently as great in themselves, as those which the syntax of the English word presents; but they result from entirely different causes, and chiefly from the liability there is of confounding the participle with the verbal adjective, which is formed from it. The confounding of it with the gerundive is now, in either language, of little or no consequence, since in modern French, as well as in English, both are indeclinable. For this reason, I have framed the syntactical rule for participles so as to include under that name the gerund, or gerundive, which is a participle governed by a preposition. The great difficulty with us, is, to determine whether the participle ought, or ought not, to be allowed to assume other characteristics of a noun, without dropping those of a participle, and without becoming wholly a noun. The liability of confounding the English participle with the verbal or participial adjective, amounts to nothing more than the occasional misnaming of a word in parsing; or perhaps an occasional ambiguity in the style of some writer, as in the following citation: "I am resolved, 'let the newspapers say what they please of canvassing beauties, haranguing toasts, and mobbing demireps,' not to believe one syllable."—Jane West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 74. From these words, it is scarcely possible to find out, even with the help of the context whether these three sorts of ladies are spoken of as the canvassers, haranguers, and mobbers, or as being canvassed, harangued, and mobbed. If the prolixity and multiplicity of these observations transcend the reader's patience, let him consider that the questions at issue cannot be settled by the brief enunciation of loose individual opinions, but must be examined in the light of all the analogies and facts that bear upon them. So considerable are the difficulties of properly distinguishing the participle from the verbal adjective in French, that that indefatigable grammarian, Girault Du Vivier, after completing his Grammaire des Grammaires in two large octavo volumes, thought proper to enlarge his instructions on this head, and to publish them in a separate book, (Traite des Participes,) though we have it on his own authority, that the rule for participles had already given rise to a greater number of dissertations and particular treatises than any other point in French grammar.

OBS. 24.—A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his strength's declining."—"He was sensible of his strength declining." In the former sentence, the noun strength should be in the objective case, governed by felt; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by declining. Thus: "He felt his strength declining;" i.e., "felt it decline."—"He was sensible of his strength's declining;" i.e., "of its decline." These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable. This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th. But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.

OBS. 25.—Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science. And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate. The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once. The absolute necessity of classing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof. Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of verbs, participles, and nouns, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them. For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T. O. Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English grammar. Of the participle the latter gives no formal definition, but he represents it as "a form, in which the action denoted by the verb is capable of being joined to a noun as its quality, or accident."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is a mere mode of the verb is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."—Ib., p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a noun: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking s at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has the comings in of a prince, may be ruined by his own gaming, or his wife's squandering.'"—Ib., p. 144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the s, not at the end, but in the middle; for comings-in, (an obsolete expression for revenues,) is not two words, but one. Nor are gaming and squandering, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles become nouns when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "is" and "may be" are not nouns, but participles: "Walking is the best exercise, though riding may be more pleasant."—Ib., p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguishing of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.