sier 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 defend