FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1308   1309   1310   1311   1312   1313   1314   1315   1316   1317   1318   1319   1320   1321   1322   1323   1324   1325   1326   1327   1328   1329   1330   1331   1332  
1333   1334   1335   1336   1337   1338   1339   1340   1341   1342   1343   1344   1345   1346   1347   1348   1349   1350   1351   1352   1353   1354   1355   1356   1357   >>   >|  
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 diff
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1308   1309   1310   1311   1312   1313   1314   1315   1316   1317   1318   1319   1320   1321   1322   1323   1324   1325   1326   1327   1328   1329   1330   1331   1332  
1333   1334   1335   1336   1337   1338   1339   1340   1341   1342   1343   1344   1345   1346   1347   1348   1349   1350   1351   1352   1353   1354   1355   1356   1357   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
participle
 

substantive

 
phrase
 
partly
 

gerund

 

participles

 

nature

 

rightly

 

construction

 
participial

species

 

amphibious

 
notice
 
attribute
 
generally
 

recipients

 
agents
 
depend
 

situation

 

transitive


consistently

 

speech

 

subject

 

object

 

express

 
actions
 
things
 

differ

 

Adjuncts

 

Webster


ancient
 
classical
 

authority

 

appearance

 
defined
 
principal
 

corresponds

 

governed

 

preposition

 
undoubtedly

neuter

 

gender

 

singular

 
indivisible
 

verbal

 
partaking
 

number

 

declinable

 

governing

 

construed