FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2499   2500   2501   2502   2503   2504   2505   2506   2507   2508   2509   2510   2511   2512   2513   2514   2515   2516   2517   2518   2519   2520   2521   2522   2523  
2524   2525   2526   2527   2528   2529   2530   2531   2532   2533   2534   2535   2536   2537   2538   2539   2540   2541   2542   2543   2544   2545   2546   2547   2548   >>   >|  
at it is in contemplation to have him do so. _The difference of meaning certainly exists_; but it would seem more judicious to treat _the latter_ as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of _me_ going to Niagara?' We should say _my_ going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, _therefore_, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think _of the propriety_ of my going to Niagara?"--_Analytic Gram._, p. 227. The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle. [423] The following is an example, but it is not very intelligible, nor would it be at all amended, if the pronoun were put in the possessive case: "I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of _them being spared_ even one lash of the cart-whip."--REV. DR. THOMPSON: _Garrison, on Colonization_, p. 80. And this is an other, in which the possessive pronoun would not be better: "But, if the slaves wish, to return to slavery, let them do so; not an abolitionist will turn out to stop _them going_ back."--_Antislavery Reporter_, Vol. IV, p. 223. Yet it might be more accurate to say--"to stop them _from_ going back." In the following example from the pen of Priestley, the objective is correctly used with _as_, where some would be apt to adopt the possessive: "It gives us an idea of _him_, as being the only person to whom it can be applied."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 151. Is not this better English than to say, "of _his_ being the only person?" The following is from the pen of a good scholar: "This made me remember the discourse we had together, at my house, about _me drawing_ constitutions, not as proposals, but as if fixed to the hand."--WILLIAM PENN: _Letter to Algernon Sidney_, Oct. 13th, 1681. Here, if _me_ is objectionable, _my_ without _of_ would be no less so. It might be better grammar to say, "about _my drawing of_ constitutions." [424] Sometimes the passive form is adopted, when there is no real need of it, and when perhaps the active would be better, because it is simpler; as, "Those portions of t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2499   2500   2501   2502   2503   2504   2505   2506   2507   2508   2509   2510   2511   2512   2513   2514   2515   2516   2517   2518   2519   2520   2521   2522   2523  
2524   2525   2526   2527   2528   2529   2530   2531   2532   2533   2534   2535   2536   2537   2538   2539   2540   2541   2542   2543   2544   2545   2546   2547   2548   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

possessive

 

pronoun

 

Priestley

 

participle

 

person

 
active
 

adjunct

 

drawing

 

objective

 

constitutions


Niagara

 

propriety

 
explanatory
 

ambiguity

 
slavery
 

applied

 

abolitionist

 
correctly
 
accurate
 

Reporter


Antislavery

 

proposals

 

grammar

 

Sometimes

 

passive

 

objectionable

 
adopted
 
simpler
 

portions

 

Sidney


remember

 

discourse

 

scholar

 

English

 
WILLIAM
 

Letter

 

Algernon

 
return
 

future

 

phrase


introduced

 

remark

 
subject
 

action

 

proper

 

uncouthness

 

leading

 

distinction

 

alleged

 

Analytic