[341] "Sometimes indeed the verb hath two regimens, and then the preposition is necessary to one of them; as, 'I address myself to my judges.'"—Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 178. Here the verb address governs the pronoun myself, and is also the antecedent to the preposition to; and the construction would be similar, if the preposition governed the infinitive or a participle: as, "I prepared myself to swim;" or, "I prepared myself for swimming." But, in any of these cases, it is not very accurate to say, "the verb has two regimens;" for the latter term is properly the regimen of the preposition. Cardell, by robbing the prepositions, and supposing ellipses, found two regimens for every verb. W. Allen, on the contrary, (from whom Nixon gathered his doctrine above,) by giving the "accusative" to the infinitive, makes a multitude of our active-transitive verbs "neuter." See Allen's Gram., p. 166. But Nixon absurdly calls the verb "active-transitive," because it governs the infinitive; i. e. as he supposes—and, except when to is not used, erroneously supposes.

[342] A certain new theorist, who very innocently fogs himself and his credulous readers with a deal of impertinent pedantry, after denouncing my doctrine that to before the infinitive is a preposition, appeals to me thus: "Let me ask you, G. B.—is not the infinitive in Latin the same as in the English? Thus, I desire to teach Latin—Ego Cupio docere. I saw Abel come—Ego videbam Abelem venire. The same principle is recognized by the Greek grammars and those of most of the modern languages."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 358. Of this gentleman I know nothing but from what appears in his book—a work of immeasurable and ill-founded vanity—a whimsical, dogmatical, blundering performance. This short sample of his Latin, (with six puerile errors in seven words,) is proof positive that he knows nothing of that language, whatever may be his attainments in Greek, or the other tongues of which he tells. To his question I answer emphatically, NO. In Latin, "One verb governs an other in the infinitive; as, Cupio discere, I desire to learn."—Adam's Gram., p. 181. This government never admits the intervention of a preposition. "I saw Abel come," has no preposition; but the Latin of it is, "Vidi Abelem venientem," and not what is given above; or, according to St. Jerome and others, who wrote, "Abel," without declension, we ought rather to say, "Vidi Abel venientem." If they are right, "Ego videbam Abelem venire," is every word of it wrong!

[343] Priestley cites these examples as authorities, not as false syntax. The errors which I thus quote at secondhand from other grammarians, and mark with double references, are in general such as the first quoters have allowed, and made themselves responsible for; but this is not the case in every instance. Such credit has sometimes, though rarely, been given, where the expression was disapproved.—G. BROWN.

[344] Lindley Murray thought it not impracticable to put two or more nouns in apposition and add the possessive sign to each; nor did he imagine there would often be any positive impropriety in so doing. His words, on this point, are these: "On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing, and perhaps in some cases incorrect: as, 'The Emperor's Leopold's; King George's; Charles's the Second's; The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's."—Octavo Gram., p. 177. Whether he imagined any of these to be "incorrect" or not, does not appear! Under the next rule, I shall give a short note which will show them all to be so. The author, however, after presenting these uncouth fictions, which show nothing but his own deficiency in grammar, has done the world the favour not to pronounce them very convenient phrases; for he continues the paragraph as follows: "The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconveniences of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.'—Ib. This undeserved praise of his own rules, he might as well have left to some other hand. They have had the fortune, however, to please sundry critics, and to become the prey of many thieves; but are certainly very deficient in the three qualities here named; and, taken together with their illustrations, they form little else than a tissue of errors, partly his own, and partly copied from Lowth and Priestley.

Dr. Latham, too, and Prof. Child, whose erroneous teaching on this point is still more marvellous, not only inculcate the idea that possessives in form may be in apposition, but seem to suppose that two possessive endings are essential to the relation. Forgetting all such English as we have in the phrases, "John the Baptist's head,"—"For Jacob my servant's sake,"—"Julius Caesar's Commentaries,"—they invent sham expressions, too awkward ever to have come to their knowledge from any actual use,—such as, "John's the farmer's wife,"—"Oliver's the spy's evidence,"—and then end their section with the general truth, "For words to be in apposition with each other, they must be in the same case."—Elementary Grammar, Revised Edition, p. 152. What sort of scholarship is that in which fictitious examples mislead even their inventors?

[345] In Professor Fowler's recent and copious work, "The English Language in its Elements and Forms," our present Reciprocals are called, not Pronominal Adjectives, but "Pronouns," and are spoken of, in the first instance, thus: "Sec.248. A RECIPROCAL PRONOUN is one that implies the mutual action of different agents. EACH OTHER, and ONE ANOTHER, are our reciprocal forms, which are treated exactly as if they were compound pronouns, taking for their genitives, each other's, one another's. Each other is properly used of two, and one another of more." The definition here given takes for granted what is at least disputable, that "each other," or "one another," is not a phrase, but is merely "one pronoun." But, to none of his three important positions here taken, does the author himself at all adhere. In Sec.451, at Note 3, he teaches thus: "'They love each other.' Here each is in the nominative case in apposition with they, and other is in the objective case. 'They helped one another.' Here one is in apposition with they, and another is in the objective case." Now, by this mode of parsing, the reciprocal terms "are treated," not as "compound pronouns," but as phrases consisting of distinct or separable words: and, as being separate or separable words, whether they be Adjectives or Pronouns, they conform not to his definition above. Out of the sundry instances in which, according to his own showing, he has misapplied one or the other of these phrases, I cite the following: (1.) "The two ideas of Science and Art differ from one another as the understanding differs from the will."—Fowler's Gram., 1850, Sec.180. Say,—"from each other;" or,—"one from the other." (2.) "THOU, THY, THEE, are etymologically related to each other."—Ib., Sec.216. Say,—"to one an other;" because there are "more" than "two." (3.) "Till within some centuries, the Germans, like the French and the English, addressed each other in familiar conversation by the Second Person Singular."—Ib., Sec.221. Say,—"addressed one an other." (4.) "Two sentences are, on the other hand, connected in the way of co-ordination [,] when they are not thus dependent one upon another."—Ib., Sec.332. Say,—"upon each other;" or,—"one upon the other;" because there are but two. (5.) "These two rivers are at a great distance from one another."—Ib., Sec.617. Say,—"from each other;" or,—"one from the other." (6.) "The trees [in the Forest of Bombast] are close, spreading, and twined into each other."—Ib., Sec.617. Say,—"into one an other."

[346] For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference: "Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase." But in my edition of Dr. Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I do not find the passage. Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part.—G. BROWN.

[347] By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of participles to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood literally, assumes it as an "established principle," that they all do so! "Participles govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, require the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, without the intervention of the preposition of; as 'Much depends on William's observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it;' or, 'Much will depend on the rule's being observed by William, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 94. These sentences, without doubt, are nearly equivalent to each other in meaning. To make them exactly so, "depends" or "will depend" must be changed in tense, and "its being neglected" must be "its being neglected by him." But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among "the established principles and best usages of the English language?"—Ib., p. 1.

[348] What, in Weld's "Abridged Edition," is improperly called a "participial noun," was, in his "original work," still more erroneously termed "a participial clause." This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the participial—"object possessed;" but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss. "The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the clause, 'composing frequently.' NOTE.—The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial clause following it."—Weld's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 150. Again: "The possessive is often governed by a participial noun; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the participial noun composing. NOTE.—The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial noun following it."—Weld's Gram., Abridged, p. 117. Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can produce false syntax. To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note: "The participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived."—Ibid. When one part of speech is said to be used as an other, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand to which class the given word belongs. If "the participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties," it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a nounal participle, whether the thing be allowable or not. Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent. Wells says, "Participles are often used in the sense of nouns; as, 'There was again the smacking of whips, the clattering of hoofs, and the glittering of harness.'—IRVING."—School Gram., p. 154. This is not well stated; because these are participial nouns, and not "participles." What Wells calls "participial nouns," differ from these, and are all spurious, all mongrels, all participles rather than nouns. In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman. His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is proper, and only instructs him not to form it without the sign! It is this: "When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a participle used as a noun, is properly in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted."—School Gram., p. 121. All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner. Those which are called "Correct," are, I think erroneous; and those which are called "False Syntax," the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.

[349] It is remarkable, that Lindley Murray, with all his care in revising his work, did not see the inconsistency of his instructions in relation to phrases of this kind. First he copies Lowth's doctrine, literally and anonymously, from the Doctor's 17th page, thus: "When the thing to which another is said to belong, is expressed by a circumlocution, or by many terms, the sign of the possessive case is commonly added to the last term: as, 'The king of Great Britain's dominions.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 45. Afterwards he condemns this: "The word in the genitive case is frequently PLACED IMPROPERLY: as, 'This fact appears from Dr. Pearson of Birmingham's experiments.' It should be, 'from the experiments of Dr. Pearson of Birmingham.' "—Ib., p. 175. And again he makes it necessary: "A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign at or near the end of the phrase: as, 'Whose prerogative is it? It is the king of Great Britain's;' 'That is the duke of Bridgewater's canal;' " &c.—Ib., p. 276. Is there not contradiction in these instructions?

[350] A late grammarian tells us: "In nouns ending in es and ss, the other s is not added; as, Charles' hat, Goodness' sake."—Wilcox's Gram., p. 11. He should rather have said, "To nouns ending in es or ss, the other s is not added." But his doctrine is worse than his syntax; and, what is remarkable, he himself forgets it in the course of a few minutes, thus: "Decline Charles. Nom. Charles, Poss. Charles's, Obj. Charles."—Ib., p. 12. See the like doctrine in Mulligan's recent work on the "Structure of Language," p. 182.

[351] VAUGELAS was a noted French critic, who died in 1650. In Murray's Grammar, the name is more than once mistaken. On page 359th, of the edition above cited, it is printed "Vangelas"—G. BROWN.

[352] Nixon parses boy, as being "in the possessive case, governed by distress understood;" and girl's, as being "coupled by nor to boy," according to the Rule, "Conjunctions connect the same cases." Thus one word is written wrong; the other, parsed wrong: and so of all his examples above.—G. BROWN.

[353] Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into "transitive, intransitive, and passive;" but whose late edition absurdly make all passives transitive; says, in his third edition, "A transitive verb is a verb that has some noun or pronoun for its object;" (p. 78;) adopts, in his syntax, the old dogma, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case;" (3d Ed., p. 154;) and to this rule subjoins a series of remarks, so singularly fit to puzzle or mislead the learner, and withal so successful in winning the approbation of committees and teachers, that it may be worth while to notice most of them here.

"REM. 1.—A sentence or phrase often supplies the place of a noun or pronoun in the objective case; as, 'You see how few of these men have returned.'"—Wells' s School Gram., "Third Thousand," p. 154; late Ed. Sec.215. According to this, must we not suppose verbs to be often transitive, when not made so by the author's definition? And if "see" is here transitive, would not other forms, such as are told, have been told, or are aware, be just as much so, if put in its place?

"REM. 2.—An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective, when the verb and the noun depending upon it are of kindred signification; as, 'To live a blameless life;'—'To run a race.'"—Ib. Here verbs are absurdly called "intransitive," when, both in fact and by the foregoing definition, they are clearly transitive; or, at least, are, by many teachers, supposed to be so.

"REM. 3.—Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which intransitive verbs are followed by objectives depending upon them; as, 'To look the subject fully in the face.'—Channing. 'They laughed him to scorn.'—Matt. 9:24. 'And talked the night away.'—Goldsmith."— Ib. Here again, verbs evidently made transitive by the construction, are, with strange inconsistency, called "intransitive." By these three remarks together, the distinction between transitives and intransitives must needs be extensively obscured in the mind of the learner.

"REM. 4.—Transitive verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives; as, 'Ask him his opinion;'—'This experience taught me a valuable lesson.'—'Spare me yet this bitter cup.'—Hemans. 'I thrice presented him a kingly crown.'—Shakspeare."—Ib. This rule not only jumbles together several different constructions, such as would require different cases in Latin or Greek, but is evidently repugnant to the sense of many of the passages to which it is meant to be applied. Wells thinks, the practice of supplying a preposition, "is, in many cases, arbitrary, and does violence to an important and well established idiom of the language."—Ib. But how can any idiom be violated by a mode of parsing, which merely expounds its true meaning? If the dative case has the meaning of to, and the ablative has the meaning of from, how can they be expounded, in English, but by suggesting the particle, where it is omitted? For example: "Spare me yet [from] this bitter cup."—"Spare [to] me yet this joyous cup." This author says, "The rule for the government of two objectives by a verb, without the aid of a preposition, is adopted by Webster, Murray, Alexander, Frazee, Nutting, Perley, Goldsbury, J. M. Putnam, Hamlin, Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others."—Ib. Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. Such a rule as this, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited. Lindley Murray's remark, "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case," is applied only to words in apposition, and wrong even there; Perley's rule is only of "Some verbs of asking and teaching;" and Nutting's note, "It sometimes happens that one transitive verb governs two objective cases," is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.

"REM. 5.—Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed in the passive voice to govern a noun or pronoun; as, 'He was asked his opinion.'—Johnson. 'He had been refused shelter.'— Irving."—Ib., p. 155, Sec.215. Passive governing is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of two sorts; the one elliptical, the other solecistical. The former text appears to mean, "He was asked for, his opinion;"—or, "He was asked to give his opinion: the latter should have been, "Shelter had been refused him;"—i.e., "to him." Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are corrected, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells's own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition. Having just given a rule, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this not: "This form of expression is anomalous, and might, in many cases, be improved. Thus, instead of saying, 'He was offered a seat on the council,' it would be preferable to say 'A seat in the council was offered [to] him.'"—Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition to, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to passive government, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also. For the ellipsis of to, before "him," is just as evident in the active expression, "I thrice presented him a kingly crown," as in the passive, "A kingly crown was thrice presented him." It is absurd to deny it in either. Having offset himself, Wells as ingeniously balances his authorities, pro and con; but, the elliptical examples being allowable, he should not have said that I and others "condemn this usage altogether."

"REM. 6.—The passive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb; as 'He was listened to.'—'Nor is this to be scoffed at.'—'This is a tendency to be guarded against.'—'A bitter persecution was carried on.'—Hallam."— Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. The words here called "prepositions," are adverbs. Prepositions they cannot be; because they have no subsequent term. Nor is it either necessary or proper, to call them parts of the verb: "was carried on," is no more a "compound verb," than "was carried off," or "was carried forward," and the like.

"REM. 7.—Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which a noun in the objective is preceded by a passive verb, and followed by a preposition used adverbially. EXAMPLES: 'Vocal and instrumental music were made use of.'—Addison. 'The third, fourth, and fifth, were taken possession of at half past eight."—Southey. 'The Pinta was soon lost sight of in the darkness of the night.'—Irving."—Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215. As it is by the manner of their use, that we distinguish prepositions and adverbs, it seems no more proper to speak of "a preposition used adverbially," than of "an adverb used prepositionally." But even if the former phrase is right and the thing conceivable, here is no instance of it; for "of" here modifies no verb, adjective, or adverb. The construction is an unparsable synchysis, a vile snarl, which no grammarian should hesitate to condemn. These examples may each be corrected in several ways: 1. Say—"were used;"—"were taken into possession;"—"was soon lost from sight." 2. Say—"They made use of music, both vocal and instrumental."—"Of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, they took possession at half past eight."—"Of the Pinta they soon list sight," &c. 3. Say—"Use was also made of both vocal and instrumental music."—"Possession of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, was taken at half past eight."—"The Pinta soon disappeared in the darkness of the night." Here again, Wells puzzles his pupil, with a note which half justifies and half condemns the awkward usage in question. See School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 147; 3d Ed., 156; late Ed., Sec. 215.

"REM. 8.—There are some verbs which may be used either transitively or intransitively; as, 'He will return in a week,' 'He will return the book.'"—Ib., p. 147; 156; &c. According to Dr. Johnson, this is true of "most verbs," and Lindley Murray asserts it of "many." There are, I think, but few which may not, in some phraseology or other, be used both ways. Hence the rule, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case," or, as Wells now has it, "Transitive verbs, in the active voice, govern the objective case," (Sec. 215,) rests only upon a distinction which itself creates, between transitives and intransitives; and therefore it amounts to little.

[354] To these examples, Webster adds two others, of a different sort, with a comment, thus: "'Ask him his opinion?' 'You have asked me the news.' Will it be said that the latter phrases are elliptical, for 'ask of him his opinion?' I apprehend this to be a mistake. According to the true idea of the government of a transitive verb, him must be the object in the phrase under consideration, as much as in this, 'Ask him for a guinea;' or in this, 'ask him to go.'"—Ibid, ut supra; Frazee's Gram., p. 152; Fowler's, p. 480. If, for the reason here stated, it is a "mistake" to supply of in the foregoing instances, it does not follow that they are not elliptical. On the contrary, if they are analogous to, "Ask him for a guinea;" or, "Ask him to go;" it is manifest that the construction must be this: "Ask him [for] his opinion;" or, "Ask him [to tell] his opinion." So that the question resolves itself into this: What is the best way of supplying the ellipsis, when two objectives thus occur after ask?—G. BROWN.

[355] These examples Murray borrowed from Webster, who published them, with references, under his 34th Rule. With too little faith in the corrective power of grammar, the Doctor remarks upon the constructions as follows: "This idiom is outrageously anomalous, but perhaps incorrigible."— Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 180; Imp. G., 128.

[356] This seems to be a reasonable principle of syntax, and yet I find it contradicted, or a principle opposite to it set up, by some modern teachers of note, who venture to justify all those abnormal phrases which I here condemn as errors. Thus Fowler: "Note 5. When a Verb with its Accusative case, is equivalent to a single verb, it may take this accusative after it in the passive voice; as, 'This has been put an end to.'"—Fowler's English Language, 8vo, Sec.552. Now what is this, but an effort to teach bad English by rule?—and by such a rule, too, as is vastly more general than even the great class of terms which it was designed to include? And yet this rule, broad as it is, does not apply at all to the example given! For "put an end," without the important word "to," is not equivalent to stop or terminate. Nor is the example right. One ought rather to say, "This has been ended;" or, "This has been stopped." See the marginal Note to Obs. 5th, above.

[357] Some, however, have conceived the putting of the same case after the verb as before it, to be government; as, "Neuter verbs occasionally govern either the nominative or [the] objective case, after them."—Alexander's Gram., p. 54. "The verb to be, always governs a Nominative, unless it be of the Infinitive Mood."—Buchanan's Gram., p. 94. This latter assertion is, in fact, monstrously untrue, and also solecistical.

[358] Not unfrequently the conjunction as intervenes between these "same cases," as it may also between words in apposition; as, "He then is as the head, and we as the members; he the vine, and we the branches."—Barclay's Works, Vol. ii, p. 189.

[359] "'Whose house is that?' This sentence, before it is parsed, should be transposed; thus, 'Whose is that house?' The same observation applies to every sentence of a similar construction."—Chandler's old Gram., p. 93. This instruction is worse than nonsense; for it teaches the pupil to parse every word in the sentence wrong! The author proceeds to explain Whose, as "qualifying house, understood;" is, as agreeing "with its nominative, house;" that, as "qualifying house;" and house, as "nominative case to the verb, is." Nothing of this is true of the original question. For, in that, Whose is governed by house; house is nominative after is; is agrees with house understood; and that relates to house understood. The meaning is, "Whose house is that house?" or, in the order of a declarative sentence, "That house is whose house?"

[360] 1: In Latin, the accusative case is used after such a verb, because an other word in the same case is understood before it; as, "Facere quae libet, ID est [hominem] esse regem."—SALLUST. "To do what he pleases, THAT is [for a man] to be a king." If Professor Bullions had understood Latin, or Greek, or English, as well as his commenders imagine, he might have discovered what construction of cases we have in the following instances: "It is an honour [for a man] to be the author of such a work."—Bullions's Eng. Gram., p. 82. "To be surety for a stranger [,] is dangerous."—Ib. "Not to know what happened before you were born, is to be always a child."—Ib. "Nescire quid acciderit antequam natus es, est semper esse puerum."—Ib. "[Greek: Esti tion aischron ...topon, hon haemen pote kurioi phainesthai proiemenous]." "It is a shame to be seen giving up countries of which we were once masters."—DEMOSTHENES: ib. What support these examples give to this grammarian's new notion of "the objective indefinite" or to his still later seizure of Greene's doctrine of "the predicate-nominative" the learned reader may judge. All the Latin and Greek grammarians suppose an ellipsis, in such instances; but some moderns are careless enough of that, and of the analogy of General Grammar in this case, to have seconded the Doctor in his absurdity. See Farnum's Practical Gram., p. 23; and S. W. Clark's, p. 149.

2. Professor Hart has an indecisive remark on this construction, as follows: "Sometimes a verb in the infinitive mood has a noun after it without any other noun before it; as, 'To be a good man, is not so easy a thing as many people imagine.' Here 'man' may be parsed as used indefinitely after the verb to be. It is not easy to say in what case the noun is in such sentences. The analogy of the Latin would seem to indicate the objective.—Thus, 'Not to know what happened in past years, is to be always a child,' Latin, 'semper esse puerum.' In like manner, in English, we may say, 'Its being me, need make no change in your determination.'"—Hart's English Gram., p. 127.

3. These learned authors thus differ about what certainly admits of no other solution than that which is given in the Observation above. To parse the nouns in question, "as used indefinitely," without case, and to call them "objectives indefinite," without agreement or government, are two methods equally repugnant to reason. The last suggestion of Hart's is also a false argument for a true position. The phrases, "Its being me," and "To be a good man," are far from being constructed "in like manner." The former is manifestly bad English; because its and me are not in the same case. But S. S. Greene would say, "Its being I, is right." For in a similar instance, he has this conclusion: "Hence, in abridging the following proposition, 'I was not aware that it was he,' we should say 'of its being he,' not 'his' nor 'him.'"—Greene's Analysis, 1st Ed., p. 171. When being becomes a noun, no case after it appears to be very proper; but this author, thus "abridging" four syllables into five, produces an anomalous construction which it would be much better to avoid.

[361] Parkhurst and Sanborn, by what they call "A NEW RULE," attempt to determine the doubtful or unknown case which this note censures, and to justify the construction as being well-authorized and hardly avoidable. Their rule is this: "A noun following a neuter or [a] passive participial noun, is in the nominative independent. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, always precedes the participial noun, either expressed or understood, signifying the same thing as the noun does that follows it." To this new and exceptionable' dogma, Sanborn adds: "This form of expression is one of the most common idioms of the language, and in general composition cannot be well avoided. In confirmation of the statement made, various authorities are subjoined. Two grammarians only, to our knowledge, have remarked OH this phraseology: 'Participles are sometimes preceded by a possessive case and followed by a nominative; as, There is no doubt of his being a great statesman.' B. GREENLEAF. 'We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word retained unchanged in connexion with it; as, I have some recollection of his father's being a judge.' GOOLD BROWN."—Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 189. On what principle the words statesman and judge can be affirmed to be in the nominative case, I see not; and certainly they are not nominatives "independent" because the word being, after which they stand, is not itself independent. It is true, the phraseology is common enough to be good English: but I dislike it; and if this citation from me, was meant for a confirmation of the reasonless dogmatism preceding, it is not made with fairness, because my opinion of the construction is omitted by the quoter. See Institutes of English Gram., p. 162. In an other late grammar,—a shameful work, because it is in great measure a tissue of petty larcenies from my Institutes, with alterations for the worse,—I find the following absurd "Note," or Rule: "An infinitive or participle is often followed by a substantive explanatory of an indefinite person or thing. The substantive is then in the objective case, and may be called the objective after the infinitive, or participle; [as,] It is an honor to be the author of such a work. His being a great man, did not make him a happy man. By being an obedient child, you will secure the approbation of your parents."—Farnum's Practical Gram., 1st Ed., p. 25. The first of these examples is elliptical; (see Obs. 12th above, and the Marginal Note;) the second is bad English,—or, at' any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for same cases; and the third parsed wrong by the rule: "child" is in the nominative case. See Obs. 7th above.

[362] When the preceding case is not "the verb's nominative" this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the word which is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, "constructively follows," in lieu of the phrase, "comes after."

[363] The author of this example supposes friend to be in the nominative case, though John's is in the possessive, and both words denote the same person. But this is not only contrary to the general rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules. Example: "Maria's duty, as a teacher, is, to instruct her pupils." Here, he says, "Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria, denoting the same object."—Peirce's Gram., p. 211. This explanation, indeed, is scarcely intelligible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy. He means, however, that, "Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria's, the two words denoting the same object." No word can be possessive "from its relation to the name Maria," except by standing immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, "Sterne's Maria."

[364] Dr. Webster, who was ever ready to justify almost any usage for which he could find half a dozen respectable authorities, absurdly supposes, that who may sometimes be rightly preferred to whom, as the object of a preposition. His remark is this: "In the use of who as an interrogative, there is an apparent deviation from regular construction—it being used without distinction of case; as, 'Who do you speak to?' 'Who is she married to?' 'Who is this reserved for?' 'Who was it made by?' This idiom is not merely colloquial: it is found in the writings of our best authors."—Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 194; his Improved Gram., p. 136. "In this phrase, 'Who do you speak to?' there is a deviation from regular construction; but the practice of thus using who, in certain familiar phrases, seems to be established by the best authors."—Webster's Rudiments of E. Gram., p. 72. Almost any other solecism may be quite as well justified as this. The present work shows, in fact, a great mass of authorities for many of the incongruities which it ventures to rebuke.

[365] Grammarians differ much as to the proper mode of parsing such nouns. Wells says, "This is the case independent by ellipsis."—School Gram., p. 123. But the idea of such a case is a flat absurdity. Ellipsis occurs only where something, not uttered, is implied; and where a preposition is thus wanting, the noun is, of course, its object; and therefore not independent. Webster, with too much contempt for the opinion of "Lowth, followed by the whole tribe of writers on this subject," declares it "a palpable error," to suppose "prepositions to be understood before these expressions;" and, by two new rules, his 22d and 28th, teaches, that, "Names of measure or dimension, followed by an adjective," and "Names of certain portions of time and space, and especially words denoting continuance of time or progression, are used without a governing word."—Philos. Gram., pp. 165 and 172; Imp. Gram., 116 and 122; Rudiments, 65 and 67. But this is no account at all of the construction, or of the case of the noun. As the nominative, or the case which we may use independently, is never a subject of government, the phrase, "without a governing word," implies that the case is objective; and how can this case be known, except by the discovery of some "governing word," of which it is the object? We find, however, many such rules as the following: "Nouns of time, distance, and degree, are put in the objective case without a preposition."—Nutting's Gram., p. 100. "Nouns which denote time, quantity, measure, distance, value, or direction are often put in the objective case without a preposition."—Weld's Gram., p. 153; "Abridged Ed.," 118. "Numes signifying duration, extension, quantity, quality, and valuation, are in the objective case without a governing word."—Frazee's Gram., p. 154. Bullions, too, has a similar rule. To estimate these rules aright, one should observe how often the nouns in question are found with a governing word. Weld, of late, contradicts himself by admitting the ellipsis; and then, inconsistently with his admission, most absurdly denies the frequent use of the preposition with nouns of time, quantity, &c. "Before words of this description, the ellipsis of a preposition is obvious. But it is seldom proper to use the preposition before such words."—Weld's "Abridged Edition," p. 118.

[366] Professor Fowler absurdly says, "Nigh, near, next, like, when followed by the objective case, may be regarded either as Prepositions or as Adjectives, to being understood."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, Sec.458, Note 7. Now, "to being understood," it is plain that no one of these words can be accounted a preposition, but by supposing the preposition to be complex, and to be partly suppressed. This can be nothing better than an idle whim; and, since the classification of words as parts of speech, is always positive and exclusive, to refer any particular word indecisively to "either" of two classes, is certainly no better teaching, than to say, "I do not know of which sort it is; call it what you please!" With decision prompt enough, but with too little regard to analogy or consistency, Latham and Child say, "The adjective like governs a case, and it is the only adjective that does so."—Elementary Gram., p. 155. In teaching thus, they seem to ignore these facts: that near, nigh, or opposite, might just as well be said to be an adjective governing a case; and that the use of to or unto after like has been common enough to prove the ellipsis. The Bible has many examples; as, "Who is like to thee in Israel?"—1 Samuel, xxvi, 15. "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first."—Exodus, xxxiv, 1; and Deut., x, 1. But their great inconsistency here is, that they call the case after like "a dative"—a case unknown to their etymology! See Gram. of E. Gram., p. 259. In grammar, a solitary exception or instance can scarcely be a true one.

[367] The following examples may illustrate these points: "These verbs, and all others like to them, were like TIMAO."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang., Vol. ii, p. 128. "The old German, and even the modern German, are much liker to the Visigothic than they are to the dialect of the Edda."—Ib., i, 330. "Proximus finem, nighest the end."—Ib., ii, 150. "Let us now come nearer to our own language."—Dr. Blair's Rhet., p. 85. "This looks very like a paradox."—BEATTIE: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 113. "He was near [to] falling."—Ib., p. 116. Murray, who puts near into his list of prepositions, gives this example to show how "prepositions become adverbs!" "There was none ever before like unto it."—Stone, on Masonry, p. 5.

"And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice."—Beauties of Shakspeare, p. 45.

[368] Wright's notion of this construction is positively absurd and self-contradictory. In the sentence, "My cane is worth a shilling," he takes the word worth to be a noun "in apposition to the word shilling." And to prove it so, he puts the sentence successively into these four forms: "My cane is worth or value for a shilling;"—"The worth or value of my cane is a shilling;"—"My cane is a shilling's worth;"—"My cane is the worth of a shilling."—Philosophical Gram., p. 150. In all these transmutations, worth is unquestionably a noun; but, in none of them, is it in apposition with the word shilling; and he is quite mistaken in supposing that they "indispensably prove the word in question to be a noun." There are other authors, who, with equal confidence, and equal absurdity, call worth a verb. For example: "A noun, which signifies the price, is put in the objective case, without a preposition; as, 'my book is worth twenty shillings.' Is worth is a neuter verb, and answers to the latin [sic—KTH] verb valet."—Barrett's Gram., p. 138. I do not deny that the phrase "is worth" is a just version of the verb valet; but this equivalence in import, is no proof at all that worth is a verb. Prodest is a Latin verb, which signifies "is profitable to;" but who will thence infer, that profitable to is a verb?

[369] In J. R. Chandler's English Grammar, as published in 1821, the word worth appears in the list of prepositions: but the revised list, in his edition of 1847, does not contain it. In both books, however, it is expressly parsed as a preposition; and, in expounding the sentence, "The book is worth a dollar," the author makes this remark: "Worth has been called an adjective by some, and a noun by others: worth, however, in this sentence expresses a relation by value, and is so far a preposition; and no ellipsis, which may be formed, would change the nature of the word, without giving the sentence a different meaning."—Chandler's Gram., Old Ed., p. 155; New Ed., p. 181.

[370] Cowper here purposely makes Mrs. Gilpin use bad English; but this is no reason why a school-boy may not be taught to correct it. Dr. Priestley supposed that the word we, in the example, "To poor we, thine enmity," &c., was also used by Shakespeare, "in a droll humorous way."—Gram., p. 103. He surely did not know the connexion of the text. It is in "Volumnia's pathetic speech" to her victorious son. See Coriolanus, Act V, Sc. 3.

[371] Dr. Enfield misunderstood this passage; and, in copying it into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing we to us: as if the meaning were, "Making us fools of nature." But it is plain, that all "fool's of nature!" must be fools of nature's own making, and not persons temporarily frighted out of their wits by a ghost; nor does the meaning of the last two lines comport with any objective construction of this pronoun. See Enfield's Speaker, p. 864.

[372] In Clark's Practical Grammar, of 1848, is found this NOTE: "The Noun should correspond in number with the Adjectives. EXAMPLES—A two feet ruler. A ten feet pole."—P. 165. These examples are wrong: the doctrine is misapplied in both. With this author, a, as well as two or ten, is an adjective of number; and, since these differ in number, what sort of concord or construction do the four words in each of these phrases make? When a numeral and a noun are united to form a compound adjective, we commonly, if not always, use the latter in its primitive or singular form: as, "A twopenny toy,"—"a twofold error,"—"three-coat plastering," say, "a twofoot rule,"—"a tenfoot pole;" which phrases are right; while Clark's are not only unusual, but unanalogical, ungrammatical.

[373] Certain adjectives that differ in number, are sometimes connected disjunctively by or or than, while the noun literally agrees with that which immediately precedes it, and with the other merely by implication or supplement, under the figure which is called zeugma: as, "Two or more nouns joined together by one or more copulative conjunctions."— Lowth's Gram., p. 75; L. Murray's, 2d Ed., p. 106. "He speaks not to one or a few judges, but to a large assembly."—Blair's Rhet., p. 280. "More than one object at a time."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 301. See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.

[374] Double comparatives and double superlatives, such as, "The more serener spirit,"—"The most straitest sect,"—are noticed by Latham and Child, in their syntax, as expressions which "we occasionally find, even in good writers," and are truly stated to be "pleonastic;" but, forbearing to censure them as errors, these critics seem rather to justify them as pleonasms allowable. Their indecisive remarks are at fault, not only because they are indecisive, but because they are both liable and likely to mislead the learner.—See their Elementary Grammar, p. 155.

[375] The learned William B. Fowle strangely imagines all pronouns to be adjectives, belonging to nouns expressed or understood after them; as, "We kings require them (subjects) to obey us (kings)."—The True English Gram., p. 21. "They grammarians, [i. e.] those grammarians. They is an other spelling of the, and of course means this, that, these, those, as the case may be."—Ibid. According to him, then, "them grammarians," for "those grammarians," is perfectly good English; and so is "they grammarians," though the vulgar do not take care to vary this adjective, "as the case may be." His notion of subjoining a noun to every pronoun, is a fit counterpart to that of some other grammarians, who imagine an ellipsis of a pronoun after almost every noun. Thus: "The personal Relatives, for the most part, are suppressed when the Noun is expressed: as, Man (he) is the Lord of this lower world. Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation. The Palace (it) stands on a Hill. Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures."—British Gram., p. 234; Buchanan's, 131. It would have been worth a great deal to some men, to have known what an Ellipsis is; and the man who shall yet make such knowledge common, ought to be forever honoured in the schools.

[376] "An illegitimate and ungrammatical use of these words, either and neither, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, 'Twenty ruffians broke into the house, but neither of them could be recognized.' 'Here are fifty pens, you will find that either of them will do.'"—MATT. HARRISON, on the English Language, p. 199. "Either and neither, applied to any number more than one of two objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction."—Ib., p. 200. Say, "Either OR neither," &c.—G. B.

[377] Dr. Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word whole is an "attribute of unity," and therefore improperly added to a plural noun. But, in fact, this adjective is not necessarily singular, nor is all necessarily plural. Yet there is a difference between the words: whole is equivalent to all only when the noun is singular; for then only do entireness and totality coincide. A man may say, "the whole thing," when he means, "all the thing;" but he must not call all things, whole things. In the following example, all is put for whole, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: "Which doth encompass and embrace the all of things."—The Dial, Vol. i, p. 59.

[378] This is not a mere repetition of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted. Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way.—G. BROWN.

[379] Some authors erroneously say, "A personal pronoun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, I will do it.'"—Goodenow's Gram. "When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the third person, but the pronoun you is of the second; yet you stands for children,"—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 54. Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circumstance. It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's pronouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters. The pronoun I does not here stand for the noun John which is of the third person; it is John's own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning is, "I myself, John, of the first person, will do it." Nor does you stand for children as spoken of by Ingersoll; but for children of the second person, uttered or implied in the address of his messenger: as, "Children, you must come in."

[380] The propriety of this construction is questionable. See Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.

[381] Among the authors who have committed this great fault, are, Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, C. Adams, the author of the British Grammar, Buchanan, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Dilworth, Felton, Fisher, Fowler, Frazee, Goldsbury, Hallock, Hull, M'Culloch, Morley, Pinneo, J. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Spencer, Weld, Wells, Webster, and White. "You is plural, whether it refer to only one individual, or to more."—Dr. Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 240. "The word you, even when applied to one person, is plural, and should never he connected with a singular verb."—Alexander's Gram., p. 53; Emmons's, 26. "You is of the Plural Number, even though used as the Name of a single Person."—W. Ward's Gram., p. 88. "Altho' the Second Person Singular in both Times be marked with thou, to distinguish it from the Plural, yet we, out of Complaisance, though we speak but to one particular Person, use the Plural you, and never thou, but when we address ourselves to Almighty God, or when we speak in an emphatical Manner, or make a distinct and particular Application to a Person."—British Gram., p. 126; Buchanan's, 37. "But you, tho' applied to a single Person, requires a Plural Verb, the same as ye; as, you love, not you lovest or loves; you were, not you was or wast."—Buchanan's Gram., p. 37.

[382] "Mr. Murray's 6th Rule is unnecessary."—Lennie's English Gram., p. 81; Bullions's, p. 90. The two rules of which I speak, constitute Murray's Rule VI; Alger's and Bacon's Rule VI; Merchant's Rule IX; Ingersoll's Rule XII; Kirkham's Rules XV and XVI; Jaudon's XXI and XXII; Crombie's X and XI; Nixon's Obs. 86th and 87th: and are found in Lowth's Gram., p. 100; Churchill's, 136; Adam's, 203; W. Allen's, 156; Blair's, 75; and many other books.

[383] This rule, in all its parts, is to be applied chiefly, if not solely, to such relative clauses as are taken in the restrictive sense; for, in the resumptive sense of the relative, who or which may be more proper than that: as, "Abraham solemnly adjures his most faithful servant, whom he despatches to Charran on this matrimonial mission for his son, to discharge his mission with all fidelity."—Milman's Jews, i, 21. See Etymology, Chap. 5th, Obs. 23d, 24th, &c., on the Classes of Pronouns.

[384] Murray imagined this sentence to be bad English. He very strangely mistook the pronoun he for the object of the preposition with; and accordingly condemned the text, under the rule, "Prepositions govern the objective case." So of the following: "It is not I he is engaged with."—Murray's Exercises, R. 17. Better: "It is not I that he is engaged with." Here is no violation of the foregoing rule, or of any other; and both sentences, with even Murray's form of the latter, are quite as good as his proposed substitutes: "It was not with him, that they were so angry."—Murray's Key, p. 51. "It is not with me he is engaged."—Ib. In these fancied corrections, the phrases with him and with me have a very awkward and questionable position: it seems doubtful, whether they depend on was and is, or on angry and engaged.

[385] In their speculations on the personal pronouns, grammarians sometimes contrive, by a sort of abstraction, to reduce all the persons to the third; that is, the author or speaker puts I, not for himself in particular, but for any one who utters the word, and thou, not for his particular hearer or reader, but for any one who is addressed; and, conceiving of these as persons merely spoken of by himself, he puts the verb in the third person, and not in the first or second: as, "I is the speaker, thou [is] the hearer, and he, she, or it, is the person or thing spoken of. All denote qualities of existence, but such qualities as make different impressions on the mind. I is the being of consciousness, thou [is the being] of perception, and he of memory."—Booth's Introd., p. 44. This is such syntax as I should not choose to imitate; nor is it very proper to say, that the three persons in grammar "denote qualities of existence." But, supposing the phraseology to be correct, it is no real exception to the foregoing rule of concord; for I and thou are here made to be pronouns of the third person. So in the following example, which I take to be bad English: "I, or the person who speaks, is the first person; you, is the second; he, she, or it, is the third person singular."—Bartlett's Manual, Part ii, p. 70. Again, in the following; which is perhaps a little better: "The person 'I' is spoken of as acted upon."—Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 29. But there is a manifest absurdity in saying, with this learned "Professor of Languages," that the pronouns of the different persons are those persons: as, "I is the first person, and denotes the speaker. Thou is the second, and denotes the person spoken to."—Ib., p. 22.

[386] (1.) Concerning the verb need, Dr. Webster has the following note: "In the use of this verb there is another irregularity, which is peculiar, the verb being without a nominative, expressed or implied. 'Whereof here needs no account.'—Milt., P. L., 4. 235. There is no evidence of the fact, and there needs none. This is an established use of need."—Philos. Gram., p. 178; Improved Gram., 127; Greenleaf's Gram. Simp., p. 38; Fowler's E. Gram., p. 537. "Established use?" To be sure, it is "an established use;" but the learned Doctor's comment is a most unconscionable blunder,—a pedantic violation of a sure principle of Universal Grammar,—a perversion worthy only of the veriest ignoramus. Yet Greenleaf profitably publishes it, with other plagiarisms, for "Grammar Simplified!" Now the verb "needs," like the Latin eget, signifying is necessary, is here not active, but neuter; and has the nominative set after it, as any verb must, when the adverb there or here is before it. The verbs lack and want may have the same construction, and can have no other, when the word there, and not a nominative, precedes them; as, "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous."—Gen., xviii, 28. There is therefore neither "irregularity," nor any thing "peculiar," in thus placing the verb and its nominative.

(2.) Yet have we other grammarians, who, with astonishing facility, have allowed themselves to be misled, and whose books are now misleading the schools, in regard to this very simple matter. Thus Wells: "The transitive verbs need and want, are sometimes employed in a general sense, without a nominative, expressed or implied. Examples:—'There needed a new dispensation.'—Caleb Cushing. 'There needs no better picture.'—Irving. 'There wanted not patrons to stand up.'—Sparks. 'Nor did there want Cornice, or frieze.'—Milton."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 141: 113th Ed., p. 154. In my edition of Milton, the text is, "Nor did they want Cornice or frieze."—P. L., B. i, l. 715, 716. This reading makes want a "transitive" verb, but the other makes it neuter, with the nominative following it. Again, thus Weld: "A verb in the imperative mode, and the transitive verbs need, want, and require, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, without a nominative; as, let there be light; There required haste in the business; There needs no argument for proving, &c. There wanted not men who would, &c. The last expressions have an active form with a passive sense, and should perhaps rather be considered elliptical than wanting a nominative; as, haste is required, no argument is needed, &c."—Weld's English Grammar Illustrated, p. 143. Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical example, "Let there be light,"—a kind of sentence from which the nominative is usually suppressed,—is here absurdly represented as being full, yet without a subject for its verb; while other examples, which are full, and in which the nominative must follow the verb, because the adverb "there" precedes, are first denied to have nominatives, and then most bunglingly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!

(3.) The idea of a command wherein no person or thing is commanded, seems to have originated with Webster, by whom it has been taught, since 1807, as follows: "In some cases, the imperative verb is used without a definite nominative."—Philos. Gram., p. 141; Imp. Gram., 86; Rudiments, 69. See the same words in Frazee's Gram., p. 133. Wells has something similar: "A verb in the imperative is sometimes used absolutely, having no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or implied; as, 'And God said, Let there be light.'"—School Gram., p. 141. But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of primeval chaos, it must have meant, "Do ye let light be there." What else could it mean? There may frequently be difficulty in determining what or who is addressed by the imperative let, but there seems to be more in affirming that it has no subject. Nutting, puzzled with this word, makes the following dubious and unsatisfactory suggestion: "Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to may; or it may be termed itself an imperative mode impersonal; that is, containing a command or an entreaty addressed to no particular person."—Nutting's Practical Gram., p. 47.

(4.) These several errors, about the "Imperative used Absolutely," with "no subject addressed," as in "Let there be light," and the Indicative "verbs NEED and WANT, employed without a nominative, either expressed or implied," are again carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology "in its Elements and Forms,"—called, rather extravagantly, an "English Grammar." See, in his edition of 1850, Sec.597, Note 3 and Note 7; also Sec.520, Note 2. Wells's authorities for "Imperatives Absolute," are, "Frazee, Allen and Cornwell, Nutting, Lynde, and Chapin;" and, with reference to "NEED and WANT," he says, "See Webster, Perley, and Ingersoll."—School Gram., 1850, Sec.209.

(5.) But, in obvious absurdity most strangely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: "Need and dare are sometimes used in a general sense without a nominative: as, 'There needed no prophet to tell us that;' 'There wanted no advocates to secure the voice of the people.' It is better, however, to supply it, as a nominative, than admit an anomala. Sometimes, when intransitive, they have the plural form with a singular noun: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you.'"—Rev. H. W. Bailey's E. Gram., 1854, p. 128. The last example—"He dare"—is bad English: dare should be dares. "He need not fear," if admitted to be right, is of the potential mood; in which no verb is inflected in the third person. "He," too, is not a "noun;" nor can it ever rightly have a "plural" verb. "To supply it, as a nominative," where the verb is declared to be "without a nominative," and to make "wanted" an example of "dare" are blunders precisely worthy of an author who knows not how to spell anomaly!

[387] This interpretation, and others like it, are given not only by Murray, but by many other grammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he. See Bicknell's Gram., Part i, p. 123; Ingersoll's, 153; Guy's, 91; Alger's, 73; Merchant's, 100; Picket's, 211; Fisk's, 146; D. Adams's, 81; R. C. Smith's, 182.

[388] The same may be said of Dr. Webster's "nominative sentences;" three fourths of which are nothing but phrases that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing "an essential part of it," is a flat absurdity? An adjunct is "something added to another, but not essentially a part of it."—Webster's Dict. But, says the Doctor, "Attributes and other words often make an essential part of the nominative; [as,] 'Our IDEAS of eternity CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'—LOCKE. 'A wise SON MAKETH a glad father; but a foolish SON IS the heaviness of his mother.' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposition cannot always be true. 'HE that gathereth in summer is a wise son.' Take away the description, 'that gathereth in summer,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable. These sentences or clauses thus constituting the subject of an affirmation, may be termed nominative sentences."—Improved Gram., p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"—Ib., p. 94; Philos. Gram., 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle temper, and a peaceful life."—Murray's Exercises, p. 8. "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr, is part of a sentence, which is the nominative case to the verb 'are.' Are is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence, as its nominative case."—Introduction to English Parsing, p. 137. On this principle of analysis, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, must be singular, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!

[389] "No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."—Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar, p. 162. "A personal pronoun becomes a nominative, though a relative does not."—Ib., p. 152. This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: "Wright says that 'Personal pronouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative pronouns can not be. Yet he declines his relatives thus: 'Nominative case, who; possessive, whose; objective, whom!"—Oliver B. Peirce's Grammar, p. 331. This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the former, and accordingly treats who, which, what, whatever, &c., as relative pronouns of the nominative case—or, as he calls them, "connective substitutes in the subjective form;" but when what or whatever precedes its noun, or when as is preferred to who or which, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously parse the verbs which belong to the relatives, who, which, and that: as, "Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself."—Peirce's Gram., p. 55. Here Peirce considers whatever to be a mere adjective, and man the subject of will adhere and will find. "Such persons as write grammar, should themselves be grammarians."—Ib., p. 330. Here he declares as to be no pronoun, but "a modifying connective," i.e., conjunction; and supposes persons to be the direct subject of write as well as of should be: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its nominative!

[390] Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: "Your master, I, commands you (not command)."—Ib. But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, may be changed in person, by being set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second. But even if terms so used do not assimilate in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above. It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: "I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry."—Hand-Book, p. 334.

[391] Professor Fowler says, "One when contrasted with other, sometimes represents plural nouns; as, 'The reason why the one are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the other for bare powers, seems to be.'—LOCKE.", Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, p. 242. This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective. For, if one may be plural, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number. "One" and "other" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun class or species, understood, which should have been expressed after the former. See Etym., Obs. 19, p. 276.

[392] Dr. Priestley says, "It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh: [as,] Minced pies was regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries. Hume's Hist. A great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it. Ib. By this term was understood, such persons as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world."—English Gram. with Notes, p. 189. The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be bad English, or at least harsh in their construction. And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb. Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's "viand" cannot possibly be taken "as the subject of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, substituting for the former, "His meat was locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, "The wages of sin is death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be good English. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being "a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th;" [that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]— Churchill's New Gram., p. 313.

[393] "If the excellence of Dryden's works was lessened by his indigence, their number was increased."—Dr. Johnson. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an if, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative too often, has the following note upon it: "If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written were—'If the excellence of Dryden's works were lessened'—Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote correct English, instead of grammar."— Philosophical Gram., p. 238. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.

[394] Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the solecisms adopted by himself and others, about "unity of idea" and "plurality of idea," in stead of condemning the things intended to be spoken of, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 738, under the head of Absurdities.

[395] In his English Reader, (Part II, Chap. 5th, Sec. 7th,) Murray has this line in its proper form, as it here stands in the words of Thomson; but, in his Grammar, he corrupted it, first in his Exercises, and then still more in his Key. Among his examples of "False Syntax" it stands thus:

"What black despair, what horror, fills his mind!" —Exercises, Rule 2.

So the error is propagated in the name of Learning, and this verse goes from grammar to grammar, as one that must have a "plural" verb. See Ingersoll's Gram., p. 242; Smith's New Gram., p. 127; Fisk's Gram., p. 120; Weld's E. Gram., 2d Ed., p. 189; Imp. Ed., p. 196.

[396] S. W. Clark, by reckoning "as" a "preposition," perverts the construction of sentences like this, and inserts a wrong case after the conjunction. See Clark's Practical Grammar, pp. 92 and 178; also this Syntax, Obs. 6 and Obs. 18, on Conjunctions.

[397] Murray gives us the following text for false grammar, under the head of Strength: "And Elias with Moses appeared to them."—Exercises, 8vo, p. 135. This he corrects thus: "And there appeared to them Elias with Moses."—Key, 8vo, p. 266. He omits the comma after Elias, which some copies of the Bible contain, and others do not. Whether he supposed the verb appeared to be singular or plural, I cannot tell; and he did not extend his quotation to the pronoun they, which immediately follows, and in which alone the incongruity lies.

[398] This order of the persons, is not universally maintained in those languages. The words of Mary to her son, "Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing," seem very properly to give the precedence to her husband; and this is their arrangement in St. Luke's Greek, and in the Latin versions, as well as in others.

[399] The hackneyed example, "I and Cicero are well,"—"Ego et Cicero valemus"—which makes such a figure in the grammars, both Latin and English, and yet is ascribed to Cicero himself, deserves a word of explanation. Cicero the orator, having with him his young son Marcus Cicero at Athens, while his beloved daughter Tullia was with her mother in Italy, thus wrote to his wife, Terentia: "Si tu, et Tullia, lux nostra, valetix; ego, et suavissimus Cicero, valemus."—EPIST. AD FAM. Lib. xiv, Ep. v. That is, "If thou, and Tullia, our joy, are well; I, and the sweet lad Cicero, are likewise well." This literal translation is good English, and not to be amended by inversion; for a father is not expected to give precedence to his child. But, when I was a boy, the text and version of Dr. Adam puzzled me not a little; because I could not conceive how Cicero could ever have said, "I and Cicero are well." The garbled citation is now much oftener read than the original. See it in Crombie's Treatise, p. 243; McCulloch's Gram., p. 158; and others.

[400] Two singulars connected by and, when they form a part of such a disjunction, are still equivalent to a plural; and are to be treated as such, in the syntax of the verb. Hence the following construction appears to be inaccurate: "A single consonant or a mute and a liquid before an accented vowel, is joined to that vowel"—Dr. Bullions, Lat. Gram. p. xi.

[401] Murray the schoolmaster has it, "used to govern."—English Gram., p. 64. He puts the verb in a wrong tense. Dr. Bullions has it, "usually governs."—Lat. Gram., p. 202. This is right.—G. B.

[402] The two verbs to sit and to set are in general quite different in their meaning; but the passive verb to be set sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter. Hence, we not only find the Latin word sedeo, to sit, used in the sense of being set, as, "Ingens coena sedet," "A huge supper is set," Juv., 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used is set, was set, &c., with reference to the personal posture of sitting. This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. "Set," says the Doctor, "can be no part of the verb to sit. If it belong to the verb to set, the translation in these passages is wrong. For to set, signifies to place, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance, expressed by the original."—Lowth's Gram., p. 53; Churchill's, 265. These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them—except that they prefer sitten to sat, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete. If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate. In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, "am set," and by Beza, "sedeo;" though Montanus and the Vulgate render it literally by "sedi," as I do by sat. See Key to False Syntax, Rule XVII, Note xii.

[403] Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek: to], the, and the English or Saxon verb do, to be equivalent or kindred words. But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally. The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify do, with [Greek: to], the, has discovered synonymes [sic—KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers: as, "It and the," says he, "when Gender is not attended to, are synonymous. Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to bring forth, or to add to what we already see. The, it, and, add, at, to, and do, are kindred words. They mark that an addition is made to some collected mass of existence. To, which literally signifies add, (like at and the Latin ad,) is merely a different pronunciation of do. It expresses the junction of an other thing, or circumstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of too."—Introd. to Analyt. Dict., p. 45. Horne Tooke, it seems, could not persuade this author into his notion of the derivation and meaning of the, it, to, or do. But Lindley Murray, and his followers, have been more tractable. They were ready to be led without looking. "To," say they, "comes from Saxon and Gothic words, which signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 183; Fisk's, 92. What an admirable explanation is this! and how prettily the great Compiler says on the next leaf: "Etymology, when it is guided by judgment, and [when] proper limits are set to it, certainly merits great attention!"—Ib., p. 135. According to his own express rules for interpreting "a substantive without any article to limit it" and the "relative pronoun with a comma before it," he must have meant, that "to comes from Saxon and Gothic words" of every sort, and that the words of these two languages "signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c." The latter assertion is true enough: but, concerning the former, a man of sense may demur. Nor do I see how it is possible not to despise such etymology, be the interpretation of the words what it may. For, if to means action or to act, then our little infinitive phrase, to be, must mean, action be, or to act be; and what is this, but nonsense?

[404] So, from the following language of three modern authors, one cannot but infer, that they would parse the verb as governed by the preposition; but I do not perceive that they anywhere expressly say so:

(1.) "The Infinitive is the form of the supplemental verb that always has, or admits, the preposition TO before it; as, to move. Its general character is to represent the action in prospect, or to do; or in retrospect, as to have done. As a verb, it signifies to do the action; and as object of the preposition TO, it stands in the place of a noun for the doing of it. The infinitive verb and its prefix to are used much like a preposition and its noun object."—Felch's Comprehensive Gram., p. 62.

(2.) "The action or other signification of a verb may be expressed in its widest and most general sense, without any limitation by a person or agent, but merely as the end or purpose of some other action, state of being, quality, or thing; it is, from this want of limitation, said to be in the Infinitive mode; and is expressed by the verb with the preposition TO before it, to denote this relation of end or purpose; as, 'He came to see me;' 'The man is not fit die;' 'It was not right for him to do thus.'"—Dr. S. Webber's English Gram., p. 35.

(3.) "RULE 3. A verb in the Infinitive Mode, is the object of the preposition TO, expressed or understood."—S. W. Clark's Practical Gram., p. 127.

[405] Rufus Nutting, A. M., a grammarian of some skill, supposes that in all such sentences there was "anciently" an ellipsis, not of the phrase "in order to," but of the preposition for. He says, "Considering this mode as merely a verbal noun, it might be observed, that the infinitive, when it expresses the object, is governed by a transitive verb; and, when it expresses the final cause, is governed by an intransitive verb, OR ANCIENTLY, BY A PREPOSITION UNDERSTOOD. Of the former kind—'he learns to read.' Of the latter—'he reads to learn,' i. e. 'for to learn.'"—Practical Gram., p. 101. If for was anciently understood in examples of this sort, it is understood now, and to a still greater extent; because we do not now insert the word for, as our ancestors sometimes did; and an ellipsis can no otherwise grow obsolete, than by a continual use of what was once occasionally omitted.

[406] (1.) "La preposition, est un mot indeclinable, place devant les noms, les pronoms, et les verbes, qu'elle regit."—"The preposition is an indeclinable word placed before the nouns, pronouns, and verbs which it governs."—Perrin's Grammar, p. 152.

(2.) "Every verb placed immediately after an other verb, or after a preposition, ought to be put in the infinitive; because it is then the regimen of the verb or preposition which precedes."—See La Grammaire des Grammaires, par Girault Du Vivier, p. 774.

(3.) The American translator of the Elements of General Grammar, by the Baron De Sacy, is naturally led, in giving a version of his author's method of analysis, to parse the English infinitive mood essentially as I do; calling the word to a preposition, and the exponent, or sign, of a relation between the verb which follows it, and some other word which is antecedent to it. Thus, in the phrase, "commanding them to use his power," he says, that "'to' [is the] Exponent of a relation whose Antecedent is 'commanding,' and [whose] Consequent [is] 'use.'"—Fosdick's De Sacy, p. 131. In short, he expounds the word to in this relation, just as he does when it stands before the objective case. For example, in the phrase, "belonging to him alone: 'to,' Exponent of a relation of which the Antecedent is 'belonging,' and the Consequent, 'him alone.'"—Ib., p. 126. My solution, in either case, differs from this in scarcely any thing else than the choice of words to express it.

(4.) It appears that, in sundry dialects of the north of Europe, the preposition at has been preferred for the governing of the infinitive: "The use of at for to, as the sign of the infinitive mode, is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day."—Fowler, on the English Language, 8vo, 1850, p. 46.

[407] Here is a literal version, in which two infinitives are governed by the preposition between; and though such a construction is uncommon, I know not why it should be thought less accurate in the one language than in the other. In some exceptive phrases, also, it seems not improper to put the infinitive after some other preposition than to; as, "What can she do besides sing?"—"What has she done, except rock herself?" But such expressions, if allowable, are too unfrequent to be noticed in any general Rule of syntax. In the following example, the word of pretty evidently governs the infinitive: "Intemperance characterizes our discussions, that is calculated to embitter in stead of conciliate."—CINCINNATI HERALD: Liberator, No. 986.

[408] This doctrine has been lately revived in English by William B. Fowle, who quotes Dr. Rees, Beauzee, Harris, Tracy, and Crombie, as his authorities for it. He is right in supposing the English infinitive to be generally governed by the preposition to, but wrong in calling it a noun, or "the name of the verb," except this phrase be used in the sense in which every verb may be the name of itself. It is an error too, to suppose with Beauzee, "that the infinitive never in any language refers to a subject or nominative;" or, as Harris has it, that infinitives "have no reference at all to persons or substances." See Fowle's True English Gram., Part ii, pp. 74 and 75. For though the infinitive verb never agrees with a subject or nominative, like a finite verb, it most commonly has a very obvious reference to something which is the subject of the being, action, or passion, which it expresses; and this reference is one of the chief points of difference between the infinitive and a noun. S. S. Greene, in a recent grammar, absurdly parses infinitives "as nouns," and by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them verbs. Thus: "Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained, is a regular passive VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is used as a NOUN in the relation of predicate; according to Rule II. A noun or pronoun used with the copula to form the predicate, must be in the nominative case."—Greene's Gram., 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This author admits, "The 'to' seems, like the preposition, to perform the office of a connective:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The infinitive differs from the preposition and its object, in that the 'to' is the only preposition used with the verb." And so he concludes, "The two [or more] parts of the infinitive are taken together, and, thus combined, may become a NOUN in any relation."—Ib., 1st Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb before it transitive; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the direct object of a transitive verb is the infinitive; as, 'We intend (What?) to leave [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) to conceal their fears.'"—Ib., p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents: "It is our purpose to leave town to-day."—"They endeavoured to conceal their fears." Or in this:—"They blustered to conceal their fears."

[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus: "To, or To, ad. A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed a syllable of the verb. It is used merely as a sign of the infinitive, without having any distinct or separate meaning: as, 'He loves to read.'"—Univ. and Crit. Dict. Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by "read" is "that towards which" the affection signified by "loves" is directed? It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this to, that its meaning is not readily seen. For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or analogy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a part of the verb."

[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at variance, so there seems to be none on which they are more at fault, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, to. For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be classed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine. Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.

(1.) "What is the meaning of the word to? Ans. To means act. NOTE.—As our verbs and nouns are spelled in the same manner, it was formerly thought best to prefix the word TO, to words when used as verbs. For there is no difference between the NOUN, love; and the VERB, to love; but what is shown by the prefix TO, which signifies act; i. e. to act love."—R. W. Greene's Inductive Exercises in English Grammar, N. Y., 1829, p. 52. Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. To no more "means act," than from "means act." And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, "act love," is imperative, and makes the word "love" a noun; and so, "to act love," (where "love" is also a noun,) must mean "act act love," which is tautological nonsense. Our nouns and verbs are not, in general, spelled alike; nor are the latter, in general, preceded by to; nor could a particle which may govern either, have been specifically intended, at first, to mark their difference. By some, as we have seen, it is argued from the very sign, that the infinitive is always essentially a noun.

(2.) "The infinitive mode is the root or simple form of the verb, used to express an action or state indefinitely; as, to hear, to speak. It is generally distinguished by the sign to. When the particle to is employed in forming the infinitive, it is to be regarded as a part of the verb. In every other case it is a preposition."—Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed., p. 80. "A Preposition is a word which is used to express the relation of a noun or pronoun depending upon it, to some other word in the sentence."—Ib., pp. 46 and 108. "The passive form of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb. Examples:—'He was listened to without a murmur.'—A. H. EVERETT. 'Nor is this enterprise to be scoffed at.'—CHANNING."—Ib., p. 146. "A verb in the infinitive usually relates to some noun or pronoun. Thus, in the sentence, 'He desires to improve,' the verb to improve relates to the pronoun he while it is governed by desires."—Ib., p. 150. "'The agent to a verb in the infinitive mode must be in the objective case.'—NUTTING."—Ib., p. 148. These citations from Wells, the last of which he quotes approvingly, by way of authority, are in many respects self-contradictory, and in nearly all respects untrue. How can the infinitive be only "the root or simple form of the verb," and yet consist "generally" of two distinct words, and often of three, four, or five; as, "to hear,"—"to have heard,"—"to be listened to,"—"to have been listened to?" How can to be a "preposition" in the phrase, "He was listened to," and not so at all in "to be listened to?" How does the infinitive "express an action or state indefinitely," if it "usually relates to some noun or pronoun?" Why must its agent "be in the objective case," if "to improve relates to the pronoun he?" Is to "in every other case a preposition," and not such before a verb or a participle? Must every preposition govern some "noun or pronoun?" And yet are there some prepositions which govern nothing, precede nothing? "The door banged to behind him."—BLACKWELL: Prose Edda, Sec.2. What is to here?