might otherwise be properly arranged thus, without _the particular
pleading of the statute_, or without _pleading the statute
particularly_. But as the sentence stands, there is nothing to show the
true construction, or how the sentence may be resolved: _Being_ and
_pleaded_ both stand as participles; whereas the construction requires
that they should be considered as standing for a noun; for _without_
does not govern _statute_; _without the statute_, is not the meaning of
the writer. But it governs _pleading_, or refers immediately to that
idea or union of ideas, expressed by _being particularly pleaded_. As
these last words represent a noun, which is immediately governed by
the preposition, _without_, the word _statute_ should have the sign of
the possessive, as much as any word in the genitive case, _without the
statute's being particularly pleaded_; that is, without the particular
pleading _of the statute_ by the parties; for in order to make grammar
or sense, _statute_ must be in the possessive.
To confirm these remarks, I would just add, that when we substitute a
pronoun in such cases, we always use the possessive case. Suppose the
word _statute_ had been previously used, in the sentence; the writer
then would have used the pronoun in the close of the sentence, thus;
"without _its_ being particularly pleaded;" and I presume that no
person will contend for the propriety of, "without _it_ being pleaded."
So we should say, "a judge will not proceed to try a criminal, without
_his_ being present." But would it be correct to say, without _him_
being present? This mode of speaking will not, I am confident, be
advocated: But unless I am mistaken, this last expression stands on a
footing with the example cited, _without the statute being pleaded_.
Numberless similar examples occur in those modern writers who aim at
refinement of language. "If we can admit the doctrine of the _stomach
having_ a general consent with the whole system."--"On account of the
_system being_ too highly toned," &c. It is strange the writers of such
language do not see that there are in fact two possessives in such
phrases--"on account _of_ the too high toning _of_ the system," and
that both should be expressed; thus, "on account _of_ the _system's_
being too high toned."
It may be questioned whether the verb _need_ may not with propriety be
used in the third person singular of the indicative, present, without
the usual termination of that person. Practice will at least warrant it.
"But tho the principle is to be applauded, the error cannot, and, in
this enlightened age, happily _need_ not be defended."----Erskine,
Orat. Temp. vol. 1. p. 95.
"Now a person _need_ but enter into himself and reflect on the
operations of his own mind."----Nugent's Burlamaqui, 1. I. 9.
"Hence it was adjudged, that the use _need_ not always be executed the
instant the conveyance is made."----Blackstone, Com. b. 2. chap. 20.
Numberless authorities of this kind may be produced; but we may spare
the trouble, and only advert to the constant practice of speakers of
every class; "he need not;" "it need not." Indeed, _he needs not_,
altho grammatically correct, is so offensive to most ears, that we have
little reason to expect people will be persuaded to use it.
The same may be said of _dare_; "he dare not."
_I am mistaken_, Lowth reprobates as bad English; asserting that the
phrase is equivalent to _I am misunderstood_. In this criticism the
Bishop _is mistaken_ most grossly. Whether the phrase is a corruption
of _am mistaking_ or not, is wholly immaterial; in the sense the
English have used it from time immemorial and universally, _mistaken_
is a mere adjective, signifying that one is in an error; and this sense
the Bishop should have explained, and not rejected the phrase.
PARTICLES.
The same author disapproves of _to_ after _averse_; another example of
his hasty decision. The practice of good writers and speakers is almost
wholly in favor of _to_, and this is good authority; the propriety of
the English particles depending almost solely on their use, without
any reference to Latin rules. _Averse_ is an adjective, describing a
certain state or quality of the mind, without regard to motion, and
therefore _averse from_ is as improper as _contrary from_, _opposed
from_, or _reluctant from_. Indeed in the original sense of _from_,
explained by Mr. Horne Tooke, as denoting _beginning_, _averse from_
appears to be nonsense.
The following phrases are said to be faulty; _previous to_,
_antecedent to_, with others of a similar nature. The criticism on
these expressions must have been made on a very superficial view of
the subject. In this sentence, "previous to the establishment of the
new government, the resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by
legal compulsory penalties;" _previous_ refers to the word _time_ or
something equivalent implied, _at the time previous_, or _during the
time or period, previous_ to the establishment of the new government.
This is the strict grammatical resolution of the phrase; and the
usual correction, _previously_, is glaringly absurd; _during the time
previously to the establishment_; into such wild errors are men led by
a slight view of things, or by applying the principles of one language
to the construction of another.[124]
"_Agreeable to his promise_, he sent me the papers;" here _agreeable_
is correct; for it refers to the fact done; he sent me the papers,
which sending was agreeable to his promise. In such cases, practice has
often a better foundation than the criticisms which are designed to
change it.
_According_ is usually numbered among the prepositions; but most
absurdly; it is always a participle, and has always a reference to
some noun or member of a sentence. "_According to his promise_, he
called on me last evening." Here _according_ refers to the whole
subsequent member of the sentence; "he called on me last evening, which
(the whole of which facts) was _according_ to his promise." No person
pretends that "_accordingly_ to his promise" is good English; yet the
phrase is not more incorrect than "_agreeably_ to his promise," or
"_previously_ to this event," which the modern critics and refiners of
our language have recommended.
"_Who_ do you speak _to_?" "_Who_ did he marry?" are challenged as bad
English; but _whom_ do you speak _to_? was never used in speaking, as
I can find, and if so, is hardly English at all. There is no doubt,
in my mind, that the English _who_ and the Latin _qui_, are the same
word with mere variations of dialect. _Who_, in the Gothic or Teutonic,
has always answered to the Latin nominative, _qui_; the dative _cui_,
which was pronounced like _qui_, and the ablative _quo_; in the same
manner as _whose_ has answered to _cujus_, in all genders; _whom_ to
_quem_, _quam_, and _what_ to _quod_. So that _who_ did he speak _to_?
_Who_ did you go _with_? were probably as good English, in ancient
times, as _cui dixit?_ _Cum quo ivisti?_ in Latin. Nay, it is more than
probable that _who_ was once wholly used in asking questions, even
in the objective case; _who_ did he marry? until some Latin student
began to suspect it bad English, because not agreeable to the Latin
rules. At any rate, _whom_ do you speak _to_? is a corruption, and all
the grammars that can be formed will not extend the use of the phrase
beyond the walls of a college.
The foregoing criticisms will perhaps illustrate and confirm an
assertion of Mr. Horne Tooke, that "Lowth has rejected much _good_
English." I should go farther and assert that he has criticized away
more phrases of _good_ English, than he has corrected of _bad_. He has
not only mistaken the true construction of many phrases, but he has
rejected others that have been used generally by the English nation
from the earliest times, and by arbitrary rules, substituted phrases
that have been rarely, or never used at all. To detect such errors, and
restrain the influence of such respectable names, in corrupting the
true idiom of our tongue, I conceive to be the duty of every friend to
American literature.
On examining the language, and comparing the practice of speaking
among the yeomanry of this country, with the stile of Shakespear and
Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in
particular the English descendants, speak the most _pure English_ now
known in the world. There is hardly a foreign idiom in their language;
by which I mean, a _phrase_ that has not been used by the best English
writers from the time of Chaucer. They retain a few obsolete _words_,
which have been dropt by writers, probably from mere affectation, as
those which are substituted are neither more melodious nor expressive.
In many instances they retain correct phrases, instead of which the
pretended refiners of the language have introduced those which are
highly improper and absurd.
Let Englishmen take notice that when I speak of the American yeomanry,
the latter are not to be compared to the illiterate peasantry of their
own country. The yeomanry of this country consist of substantial
independent freeholders, masters of their own persons and lords of
their own soil. These men have considerable education. They not only
learn to read, write and keep accounts; but a vast proportion of them
read newspapers every week, and besides the Bible, which is found in
all families, they read the best English sermons and treatises upon
religion, ethics, geography and history; such as the works of Watts,
Addison, Atterbury, Salmon, &c. In the eastern states, there are public
schools sufficient to instruct every man's children, and most of the
children are actually benefited by these institutions. The people of
distant counties in England can hardly understand one another, so
various are their dialects; but in the extent of twelve hundred miles
in America, there are very few, I question whether a hundred words,
except such as are used in employments wholly local, which are not
universally intelligible.
But unless the rage for imitating foreign changes can be restrained,
this agreeable and advantageous uniformity will be gradually destroyed.
The standard writers abroad give us local practice, the momentary whims
of the great, or their own arbitrary rules to direct our pronunciation;
and we, the apes of fashion, submit to imitate any thing we hear and
see. Sheridan has introduced or given sanction to more arbitrary and
corrupt changes of pronunciation, within a few years, than had before
taken place in a century; and in Perry's Dictionary, not to mention the
errors in what he most arrogantly calls his "_Only sure Guide_ to the
English Tongue," there are whole pages in which there are scarcely two
or three words marked for a just pronunciation. There is no Dictionary
yet published in Great Britain, in which so many of the analogies of
the language and the just rules of pronunciation are preserved, as in
the common practice of the well informed Americans, who have never
consulted any foreign standard. Nor is there any grammatical treatise,
except Dr. Priestley's, which has explained the real idioms of the
language, as they are found in Addison's works, and which remain to
this day in the American practice of speaking.
The result of the whole is, that we should adhere to our own practice
and general customs, unless it can be made very obvious that such
practice is wrong, and that a change will produce some considerable
advantage.
FOOTNOTES:
[85] It is a dispute among grammarians, whether the interjection is
a part of speech; and the question, like many others upon similar
subjects, has employed more learning than common sense. The simple
truth is this; the involuntary sounds produced by a sudden passion, are
the language of nature which is subject only to nature's rules. They
are, in some degree, similar among all nations. They do not belong to a
grammatical treatise, any more than the looks of fear, surprise or any
other passion. The words, ah me! oh me! are mere exclamations, as are
bless me! my gracious! and numberless other sounds, which are uttered
without any precise meaning, and are not reduceable to any rules.
[86] See Dr. Edwards on the Mohegan tongue. New Haven. 1788.
[87] _While_ is an old Saxon noun, signifying _time_; and it is still
used in the same sense, _one while_, _all this while_. _Adown_ is of
uncertain origin. The Saxon _aduna_ cannot easily be explained. _Above_
is from an old word, signifying _head_. _Among_ is from the Saxon
_gemengan_ to mix. The etymology of the others is obvious.
[88] It has been remarked that _y_ and _g_ are gutturals which bear
nearly the same affinity to each other as _b_ and _p_. Thus it happens
that we find in old writings a _y_ in many words where _g_ is now used;
as _ayen_, _ayenst_, for again, against. Thus _bayonet_ is pronounced
_bagonet_.
[89] Four hundred years ago, the purest author wrote _sen_ or _sin_
which is now deemed vulgar:
"Sin thou art rightful juge, how may it be,
That thou wolt soffren innocence to spill,
And wicked folk to regne in prosperitee?"
Chaucer, Cant. Tales. 5234.
[90] _Out_ was originally a verb. So in the first line of the
celebrated Chevy Chace,
"The Persé _owt_ of Northombarlande,
And a vow to God made he," &c.
I have, in one or two instances, observed the use of it still among the
lower classes of people, in this country; and I find _outed_ in some
good writers, as late as Charles I.
[91] Mr. Horne remarks that the French word _mais_ was formerly used
in the sense of _more_, or _bot_. The English word _more_ was formerly
often spelt _mo_.
"Telle me anon withouten wordes _mo_."
Chaucer, Prol. to Cant. Tales, 810.
Is it not possible that _mo_ or _more_ and the French _mais_ may be
radically the same word?
The following passage will confirm the foregoing explanation of
_beutan_. It is taken from the Saxon version of the Gospels.---- Luke,
chap. 1. v. 74. of the original.
"Hæt we _butan_ ege of ure feonda handa alysede, him theowrian."
This version of the Gospels was doubtless as early as the tenth or
eleventh century. In Wickliff's version, made about three centuries
later, the passage stands thus: "That we _without_ drede, delyvered
fro the hand of oure enemyes, serve to him." Where we find _butan_ and
_without_ are synonimous.
The word _bot_ or _bote_ is still retained in the law language, as
_fire-bote_, _house-bote_; where it is equivalent to _enough_ or
_sufficiency_.
[92] So in Mandeville's works. "And right as the schip men taken here
avys here, and govern hem _be_ the lode sterre, right so don schip men
bezonde the parties, _be_ the sterre of the Southe, the which apperethe
not to us."
[93] The French _oui_ is said to be a derivative or participle of
the verb _ouir_ to hear. The mode of assent therefore is by the word
_heard_; as what you say is _heard_; a mode equally expressive with the
English.
[94] It is most probable that many of the English words beginning
with _wh_ are from the same original as the Latin qui, quæ, quod; and
both coeval with the Greek. Qui and who; quod and what; are from the
same root, and a blending of the Greek ~kai ho~ and ~kai hoti~. This
supposition is strongly supported by the ancient Scotch orthography of
_what_, _where_, &c. which was _quhat_, _quhar_.
[95] The termination _ly_, from _liche_, added to _adjectives_, forms
the part of speech called _adverbs_; as _great_, _greatly_; _gracious_,
_graciously_. But when this termination is added to a noun, it forms
an adjective, as God, _Godly_; heaven, _heavenly_; and these words are
also used adverbially; for they will not admit the addition of another
_ly_. _Godlily_, which has been sometimes used, that is, _Godlikelike_,
and other similar words, are not admissible, on any principle whatever.
[96] _Do_ and _to_ are undoubtedly from the same root; _d_ and _t_
being convertible letters.
[97] This word is not used in modern French; but its derivatives,
_avitailler_, _avitaillment_, &c. are still retained.
[98] Correspondence, letter 53.
[99] Some of these articles, in other languages, have names in the
singular number, as in Latin, _forceps_, pincers; _forfex_, sheers or
scissors; _follis_, bellows. In French, _souflet_ is singular, and
_pincettes_, plural. A _bellows_ is sometimes heard in English, and is
perfectly correct.
[100] Will the same authority justify our farmers in prefixing _pair_
to a sett of _bars_, and other people, in prefixing it to _stairs_,
when there are five or six of the former, and perhaps twenty of the
latter? A _pair of bars_, a _pair of stairs_, in strictness of speech,
are very absurd phrases; but perhaps it is better to admit such
anomalies, than attempt to change universal and immemorial practice.
[101] "The _King of England's court_, toto nempe illi aggregato. The
_King of England_, tamquam uni substantivo potponitur litera formativa
_s_."----Wallis.
[102] Second part of the Grammatical Institute. Tit. Notes.
[103] Chaucer's Works, Glossary, p. 151.
[104] The Editor of Chaucer's Works before mentioned, remarks, "that
_a_, in composition with words of Saxon original, is an abbreviation
of _as_ or _of_, _at_, _on_ or _in_; and often a corruption of the
prepositive particle _ge_ or _y_." According to this writer, _a_ is any
thing and every thing; it has so many derivations and uses, that it has
no certain derivation or meaning at all. In the phrase _a coming_, _a_
seems now to be a mere expletive; but otherwise _a_, _one_, and _an_
have the same meaning in all cases.
[105] Lowth's Introduction. Tit. verb.
[106] _Run_, like many other verbs, may be used either transitively or
intransitively. Simply _to run_, is intransitive; _to run a horse_,
transitive.
[107] Lowth observes a distinction between the verb _to will_, and the
auxiliary, _will_; the first being regularly inflected. _I will_, _thou
willest_, _he wills_, and the latter, _I will_, _thou will_, _he will_.
But altho this distinction actually exists in modern practice, yet the
words are, in both cases, the same--derived from the same root, and
still retaining nearly the same meaning.
[108] _If I were_, _thou wert_, _he were_, in the present hypothetical
tense of the subjunctive mode, are not used in the indicative.
[109] It has been before observed, that the common people have not
wholly lost this pronunciation, _woll_, to this day.
[110] See the second part of the Grammatical Institute. Appendix.
[111] It must be remembered that _be_ is the old original substantive
verb, and belongs to the indicative. _Am_ and _art_ are of later
introduction into English.
[112] Lowth's Introduction, p. 39. Note.
[113] "The present tense in English hath often the _sense of the
future_; as _when do you go out of town?_ I go tomorrow: that is, when
will you, shall you go? I shall go. _If you do well_, that is, shall
do well, you will be rewarded: _As soon as_, or _when you come there_;
that is, shall come, turn on your right hand: With these forms of
speaking, the verb is always placed in the future in Latin, Greek and
Hebrew."----Bayley's Intro. to Lan. Lit. and Phil. 99.
This critical writer has explained this mode of speaking with accuracy;
but it would be more correct to call this form of the verb, an
_elliptical future_, than to say, _the present tense has the sense of
the future_.
[114] So in the law stile. "If a man _die_ intestate;" "if a man
_die_ seised of an estate in fee;" "if Titius _enfeoff_ Gaius," &c.
are future; and in most such phrases used in translations from the
Latin and French, the verbs in the original are future. But in law the
same form is used in the present very frequently, agreeable to the
ancient practice. The reason may be, the convenience and necessity of
copying words and phrases with great exactness. But Blackstone, the
most accurate and elegant law writer, uses the other form, "if a man
_has_ heirs;" "if a good or valuable consideration _appears_;" and too
often, when the sense requires the future. He generally gives _be_ its
subjunctive form, as it is called, and most other verbs the indicative.
[115] In some instances, the time is present, and the ellipsis may be
supplied by _may_ or some other auxiliary.
[116] In the original, the participle of the present time is employed:
~hina kai echontes gynaikas, hôs mê echontes~; and so in the other
instances. The Greek is correct; "those _having_ wives as _not having_
them." The translation is agreeable enough to the English idiom; but
the verbs represent the present time.
[117] A similar use of the verb occurs after _wish_; "_I wish I had_
my estate _now_ in possession;" this would be expressed in Latin.
_Utinam me habere_, using the present of the infinitive, or _Utinam ut
haberem_; but this Imperfect tense of the Subjunctive, both in Latin
and French, is used to convey the same ideas as English verbs after if;
_if I had_, _si haberem_, _si j'aurois_, and whatever may be the name
annexed to this form of the verb, it cannot, in the foregoing sense,
have any reference to past time.
The common phrases, _I had rather_, _he had better_, are said to be a
corruption of _I would rather_, _he would better_, rapidly pronounced,
_I'd rather_. I am not satisfied that this is a just account of their
origin; _would_ will not supply the place of _had_ in all cases. At any
rate, the phrases have become good English.
[118] The following translation of a passage in Cicero is directly
in point. "Vivo tamen in ea ambitione et labore tanquam id, quod non
postulo, _expectem_."----Cicero ad Quintum. 2. 15.
"I live still in such a course of ambition and fatigue, as if _I were
expecting_ what I do not really desire."----Middleton, Life of Cicero,
vol. 2. p. 97.
Here _tanquam expectem_ are rendered very justly, "as if I _were_
expecting;" _now_, in present time, agreeable to the original. The
words carry a negative: _if I were expecting_, implying, that _I do not
expect_.
[119] This tense is not admitted to be good English; yet is often used
in speaking; the _have_ being contracted or corrupted into _a_, _had a
written_, _if he had a received_.
[120] We have derived our substantive verb from two radical verbs;
_beon_, whence come the English _be_, and the German _bist_; and
_weorthan_, to be or _become_, fieri; from which probably, the Danes
have their _varer_, and the English their _were_.
[121] The great source of these errors is this: Grammarians have
considered _that_ as a conjunction, and supposed that "conjunctions
couple like cases and modes;" a Latin rule that does not always hold
in English. But Mr. Horne Tooke has clearly proved the word _that_ to
be always a relative pronoun: It always relates to a word or sentence;
and the reason why grammarians have called it a conjunction, may be
this; they could not find any word to govern it as a relative, and
therefore did not know what to do with it. But it is in fact a relative
word, thus, "two men have made a discovery;" this is one assertion.
What discovery? "_that_ or _this_ is the discovery;" the word _that_
carrying the force of a complete affirmation; "there _was_ a God." Here
we see the absurdity of Swift's declaration and the common notions of a
subjunctive mode. There is no subjunctive; in strictness of speech, all
sentences are resolvable into distinct declaratory phrases. "There _is_
a God;" "two young men have discovered _that_;" so the sentence should
be written to show the true construction.