Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

"They were more learned than either him or her, but not more happy."

This sentence presents a very irregular construction. The pronouns him and her are put in the objective case, though there is not any verb, or other word in the sentence, either expressed or implied, that requires these pronouns to be in the objective. They are not governed, as may appear at the first view, by the conjunction than: but they agree with the verb was, which is understood, and to which verb they form the nominative case: "more learned than either he or she was." In such sentences, if the word or words understood are supplied, the true construction will be apparent, agreeably to the twentieth Rule of Syntax. The whole sentence, when properly corrected, will therefore stand thus: "They were more learned than either he or she was, but not more happy."

"Their schemes defeated, and both him and them disgraced, they all retired from public notice."

This sentence violates the rules of grammar. The pronouns him and them are put in the objective case, without any verb, preposition, or other word, to require their being in that case. They are therefore to be considered as in the nominative case, and as, in this case, they have no personal tense of a verb, and are placed before a participle, independently on the rest of the sentence, they properly from the case absolute; according to the fifth note under the first Rule of Syntax. The sentence then, when properly corrected, would be in the following form: "Their schemes defeated, and both he and they disgraced, they all retired from puplic notice."

"Who do you believe him to be?"

This is an incorrect sentence. The relative who is in the nominative case, without any verb, expressed or understood, to which it can refer; and there is no grammatical rule which requires it to be in the nominative. By the fourth note, under the eleventh Rule of Syntax, the verb to be has the same case after it, in construction, as that which precedes it and therefore who should be whom, because him is in the objective case, and the relative, in its true construction, follows the verb to be, and receives its influence. The verb believe governs the pronoun him in the objective case; and though the relative precedes the verb to be, in its place of the sentence, yet, in grammatical construction, it follows

that verb; which will appear by changing the form of the sentence thus: "You believe him to be whom?" As the verb to be may be considered as a conductor of cases, and as the words preceding and following it, are in apposition to each other; these ideas may farther show the propriety of putting the relative in the objective case. In the following corrected form of the sentence, the two words him and whom are put in apposition, that is, they refer to the same person, and are conducted by the verb to be: "Whom do you believe him to be?"

"Prudence, policy, nay his own true interest, strongly recommends the line of conduct proposed to him.'

This sentence is not grammatical. The verb recommends, in the singular number, supposes that the nominative, “his own true interest," is designed to be, not only particularly, but exclusively, referred to by the verb, as the only nominative to which it relates. But this is not the drift of the sentence. The writer intended to signify that prudence, policy, and interest, all recommended the line of conduct, but with a particular regard and emphasis with respect to interest. The passage, therefore, when properly corrected would run thus: "Prudence, policy, nay, even his own interest, recommend the line of conduct proposed to him."

"The officer with his guard are in full pursuit of the fugitives."

This is an incorrect sentence. By the verb being in the plural number, it is supposed that it has a plural nominative, which is not the case. The only nominative to the verb, is, the officer: the expression his guard, are in the objective case, governed by the preposition with; and they cannot consequently form the nominative, or any part of it; for, according to the seventeenth Rule of Syntax, prepositions govern the objective case. The prominent subject, and the true nominative of the verb, and to which the verb peculiarly refers, is the officer. And therefore the passage, when regularly expressed, will be as follows: "The officer, with his guard, is in full pursuit of the fugitives;" or, "The officer and his guard are in full pursuit of the fugitives."

"Not only his business, but his character also have been impaired."

This is a construction not according to the rules of grammar. The verb have, in the plural number, presupposes a plural nominative, which is not found in the sentence. The

assertion is not made of business and character conjointly; but only of character. This is the prominent subject, and the point to which the writer peculiarly adverts, and to which he means to attract the reader's attention; and therfore the verb should correspond with it. The words his business, are referred to incidentally, or as a circumstance supposed to be known; and may properly be considered as having the verb belonging to it, seperately understood. In this point of view, therefore, the sentence, when put into regular form, would run thus: "Not only his business, but his character also, has been impaired."

"The judge too, as well as the jury, were very severe."

This is an irregular and ungrammatical sentence. The verb is made plural, from an idea that the writer intended to make his assertion as applicable to the jury as to the judge, and to excite the reader's attention equally to both. But this was not his design. The intention evidently was, to speak of the judge's severity, and to attract the reader's mind peculiarly to that assertion. The idea of the jury's being severe, is hinted at, but placed as it were in the back ground; it is an incidental circumstance, supposed to be known, and may be considered in the nature of an adjunct to the chief subject, with the verb understood. The severity of the judge is the principal and prominent object of the sentence, and that to which the reader is expected to attend, as the main design of the writer. Under these views, the sentence, when corrected, would be in the following form: "The judge too, as well as the jury, was very severe.'

[ocr errors]

"Charles intended to have purchased an estate in the summer of 1815."

This sentence violates the order of time, and the rule of grammar. The perfect of the infinitive is here, by the construction of the sentence, supposed to precede the intention: but this is impossible. The intention to purchase must necessarily have existed, prior to the purchase; and the relative time of the two verbs should be expressed accordingly. Whether we suppose the meaning to be, that the intention existed, in the summer of 1815, or that the purchase was to be made at that period, in either case, the purchase must be considered as posterior to the intention. It is absurd to say, that Charles, intended to do a thing which, by the form of the verb in the past time of the infinitive, is supposed to have been done before the intention existed. In such sentences as

.

that under consideration, whatever period of past time is assumed for the intention, the object to which the intention refers, must, at that period, have been contemplated as future. Though both the intention and purchase are now past, with respect to the present time, they were not so at the time referred to and they must be viewed exactly in the same light, with respect to the true construction of the sentence, as if the intention to purchase now existed. No person would say, "I intend to have purchased an estate," instead of," I intend to purchase it." The sentence in question, would therefore, when properly corrected by the thirteenth Rule of Syntax, stand as follows: "In the summer of 1815, Charles intended to purchase an estate."

"Every thought and every desire, are known to the great searcher of hearts."

[ocr errors]

This sentence is not grammatical. The verb are, in the plural, requires a correspondent plural nominative, which is not found in the sentence. The pronoun every, in the two clauses of the sentence, is singular, and does not lose its nature, nor receive any modification by repetition. How frequently soever it may be added to a different substantive, it is still the pronoun every, and retains its peculiar signification, which is, that, of many, it refers to each one of them all taken seperately; as in the following sentences: "Every man, every woman, every child, every individual, was drowned;" "Every one of the men and women was lost." The conjunction does not alter the construction. Whatever number of nouns may be connected by a conjunction with the pronoun every, this pronoun is as applicable to the whole mass of them, as to any one of the nouns: and therefore the verb is correctly put in the singular number, and refers to the whole, seperately and individually considered. In short, this pronoun so entirely coalesces with the nouns, however numerous and united, that it imparts its peculiar nature to them all, and makes the whole number correspond together, and require a similar construction. These views of the subject show, that the sentence in question, when properly corrected, would stand thus: "Every thought and every desire, is known to the great searcher of hearts.". This correction is made agreeably to the note to Rule vii. of the key. Syntax. See "Adjective Pronouns." The construction forms one of the exceptions to the second Rule of Syntax.

"This was the cause, which first gave rise to such a barbarous practice."

This sentence is inaccurate. The words first and rise have here the same meaning; and the word such is not properly ap plied. This word signifies of that kind: but the author does not refer to a kind or species of barbarity. He means a degree of it: and therefore the word so, instead of such, ought to have been used. The words cause and gave rise, are also tautological: one of them should, consequently, be omitted. The sentence corrected would stand thus: "This was the original cause of so barbarous a practice;" or, "of a practice so barbarous."

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »