The Grammar of English Grammars Part 137

1. After verbs of DESISTING; as, "The Cryer used to proclaim, DIXERUNT, i.

e. They _have done speaking._"--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 132. "A friend is advised to _put off making_ love to Lalage."--_Philological Museum_, i, 446. "He _forbore doing_ so, on the ground of expediency."--_The Friend_, iv, 35. "And yet architects never _give over attempting_ to reconcile these two incompatibles."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 338. "Never to _give over seeking_ and _praying_ for it."--_N. Y. Observer._ "Do not _leave off seeking._"--_President Edwards._ "Then Satan _hath done flattering_ and _comforting._"--_Baxter._ "The princes _refrained talking._"--_Job_, xxix, 9. "Principes _cessabant loqui._"--_Vulgate._ Here it would be better to say, "The princes refrained _from_ talking." But Murray says, "_From_ seems to be superfluous after _forbear_: as, 'He could not forbear from appointing the pope,' &c."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 203. But _"forbear to appoint"_ would be a better correction; for this verb is often followed by the infinitive; as, _"Forbear to insinuate."_--_West's Letters_, p. 62.

"And he _forbare to go_ forth."--_1 Sam._, xxiii, 13. The reader will observe, that, _"never to give over"_ or _"not to leave off,"_ is in fact the same thing as to continue; and I have shown by the a.n.a.logy of other languages, that after verbs of continuing the participle is not an object of government; though possibly it may be so, in these instances, which are somewhat different. 2. After verbs of OMITTING; as, "He _omits giving_ an account of them."--_Tooke's Diversions of Purley_, i, 251. I question the propriety of this construction; and yet, _"omits to give"_ seems still more objectionable. Better, "He _omits all account_ of them." Or, "He _neglects to give_, or _forbears to give_, any account of them." L. Murray twice speaks of apologizing, "for the use he has made of his predecessors'

labours, and for _omitting to insert_ their names."--_Octavo Gram., Pref._, p. vii; and _Note_, p. 73. The phrase, _"omitting to insert,"_ appears to me a downright solecism; and the p.r.o.noun _their_ is ambiguous, because there are well-known names both for the _men_ and for their _labours_, and he ought not to have omitted either species wholly, as he did. "Yet they absolutely _refuse doing so_, one with another."--_Harris's Hermes_, p.

264. Better, _"refuse to do so."_ "I had as repeatedly _declined_ going."--_Leigh Hunt's Byron_, p. 15.

3. After verbs of PREVENTING; as, "Our s.e.x are happily _prevented from engaging_ in these turbulent scenes."--_West's Letters to a Lady_, p. 74.

"To prevent our frail natures _from deviating_ into bye paths [write _by-paths_] of error."--_Ib._, p. 100. "Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 99; _Murray's Gram._, p. 303; _Jamieson's Rhet._, p. 72. This construction, though very common, is palpably wrong: because its most natural interpretation is, "Prudence improperly prevents our speech or action." These critics ought to have known enough to say, "Prudence prevents _us from_ speaking or acting improperly." "This, however, doth not _hinder_ p.r.o.nunciation _to borrow_ from singing."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 70. Here the infinitive is used, merely because it does not sound well to say, _"from borrowing from singing;"_ but the expression might very well be changed thus, _"from being indebted to singing."_ "'This by no means _hinders_ the book _to be_ a useful one.'--_Geddes._ It should be, _'from being.'_"--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 318.

4. After verbs of AVOIDING: as, "He might have _avoided treating_ of the origin of ideas."--_Tooke's Diversions_, i, 28. "We may _avoid talking_ nonsense on these subjects."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 281. "But carefully _avoid being_ at any time ostentatious and affected."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.

233. "Here I cannot _avoid mentioning_[420] the a.s.sistance I have received."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. iv. "It is our duty to _avoid leading_ others into temptation,"--_West's Letters_, p. 33. "Nay, such a garden should in some measure _avoid imitating_ nature."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 251. "I can promise no entertainment to those who _shun thinking_."--_Ib._, i, 36. "We cannot _help being_ of opinion."--ENCYC.

BRIT. _Murray's Gram._, p. 76. "I cannot _help being_ of opinion."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 311. "I cannot _help mentioning_ here one character more."--_Hughes. Spect._, No. 554. "These would sometimes very narrowly _miss being catched_ away."--_Steele_. "Carleton very narrowly _escaped being taken_."--_Grimshaw's Hist._, p. 111. Better, "escaped _from_ being taken;"--or, "_escaped capture_."

OBS. 19.--In sentences like the following, the participle seems to be improperly made _the object_ of the verb: "I intend _doing_ it."--"I remember _meeting_ him." Better, "I intend _to do_ it."--"I remember _to have met_ him." According to my notion, it is an error to suppose that verbs in general may govern participles. If there are any proper instances of such government, they would seem to be chiefly among verbs of _quitting_ or _avoiding_. And even here the a.n.a.logy of General Grammar gives countenance to a different solution; as, "They _left beating of_ Paul."--_Acts_, xxi, 32. Better, "They _left beating_ Paul;"--or, "They _quit beating_ Paul." Greek, "[Greek: Epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon.]"

Latin, "Cessaverunt _percutientes_ Paulum."--_Monta.n.u.s_. "Cessarunt _coedere_ Paulum."--_Beza_. "Cessaverunt _percutere_ Paulum."--_Vulgate_.

It is true, the English participle in _ing_ differs in some respects from that which usually corresponds to it in Latin or Greek; it has more of a substantive character, and is commonly put for the Latin gerund. If this difference does not destroy the argument from a.n.a.logy, the opinion is still just, that _left_ and _quit_ are here _intransitive_, and that the participle _beating_ relates to the p.r.o.noun _they_. Such is unequivocally the construction of the Greek text, and also of the literal Latin of Arias Monta.n.u.s. But, to the mere English grammarian, this method of parsing will not be apt to suggest itself: because, at first sight, the verbs appear to be transitive, and the participle in _ing_ has nothing to prove it an adjunct of the nominative, and not the object of the verb--unless, indeed, the mere fact that it is a participle, is proof of this.

OBS. 20.--Our great Compiler, Murray, not understanding this construction, or not observing what verbs admit of it, or require it, has very unskillfully laid it down as a rule, that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a _substantive phrase_ in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb, _expressed or understood_: as, 'By _promising much and performing but little_, we become despicable.' 'He studied to avoid _expressing himself too severely_.'"--_Octavo Gram._, p.

194.[421] This very popular author seems never to have known that participles, as such, may be governed in English by prepositions. And yet he knew, and said, that "prepositions do not, _like articles and p.r.o.nouns_, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive."--_Ibid._ This he 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 a.s.sertion 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 pa.r.s.ed 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 cla.s.sical 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 princ.i.p.al difference being, that the one is declined, like a noun, and the other is not. The a.n.a.logy, however, is but lamely maintained, when we come to those irregular constructions in which the participle is made a half-noun in English. It is true, the gerund of the nominative case may be made the subject of a verb in Latin; but we do not translate it by the English participle, but rather by the infinitive, or still oftener by the verb with the auxiliary _must_: as, "_Vivendum est mihi recte_, I must live well."--_Grant's L. Gram._, p. 232. This is better English than the nearer version, "Living correctly is necessary for me;"

and the exact imitation, "Living is to me correctly," is nonsense. Nor does the Latin gerund often govern the genitive like a noun, or ever stand as the direct object of a transitive verb, except in some few doubtful instances about which the grammarians dispute. For, in fact, to explain this species of words, has puzzled the Latin grammarians about as much as the English; though the former do not appear to have fallen into those palpable self-contradictions which embarra.s.s the instructions of the latter.

OBS. 22.--Dr. Adam says, "The gerund in English becomes a substantive, by _prefixing_ the article to it, and then it is always to be construed with the preposition _of_; as, 'He is employed _in writing_ letters,' or, 'in _the writing of_ letters:' but it is improper to say, 'in _the writing_ letters,' or, 'in _writing of_ letters.'"--_Latin and English Gram._, p.

184. This doctrine is also taught by Lowth, Priestley, Murray, Comly, Chandler, and many others; most of whom extend the principle to all participles that govern the possessive case; and they might as well have added all such as are made either the subjects or the objects of verbs, and such as are put for nominatives after verbs neuter. But Crombie, Allen, Churchill, S. S. Greene, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and some others, teach that participles may perform these several offices of a substantive, without dropping the regimen and adjuncts of participles. This doctrine, too, Murray and his copyists absurdly endeavour to reconcile with the other, by resorting to the idle fiction of "_substantive phrases_" endued with all these powers: as, "_His being at enmity with Caesar_ was the cause of perpetual discord."--_Crombie's Treatise_, p. 237; _Churchill's Gram._, p.

141. "Another fault is _allowing it to supersede_ the use of a point."-- _Churchill's Gram._, p. 372. "To be sure there is a possibility of some ignorant _reader's confounding the two vowels_ in p.r.o.nunciation."--_Ib._, p. 375. It is much better to avoid all such English as this. Say, rather, "_His enmity with Caesar_ was the cause of perpetual discord."--"An other fault is _the allowing of_ it to _supersede_ the use of a point."--"To be sure, there is a possibility _that_ some ignorant _reader may confound_ the two vowels, in p.r.o.nunciation."

OBS. 23.--In French, the infinitive is governed by several different prepositions, and the gerundive by one only, the preposition _en_,--which, however, is sometimes suppressed; as, "_en pa.s.sant, en faisant,--il alloit courant_."--_Traite des Participes_, p. 2. In English, the gerundive is governed by several different prepositions, and the infinitive by one only, the preposition _to_,--which, in like manner, is sometimes suppressed; as, "_to pa.s.s, to do,--I saw him run_." The difficulties in the syntax of the French participle in _ant_, which corresponds to ours in _ing_, are apparently as great in themselves, as those which the syntax of the English word presents; but they result from entirely different causes, and chiefly from the liability there is of confounding the participle with the verbal adjective, which is formed from it. The confounding of it with the gerundive is now, in either language, of little or no consequence, since in modern French, as well as in English, both are indeclinable. For this reason, I have framed the syntactical rule for participles so as to include under that name the gerund, or gerundive, which is a participle governed by a preposition. The great difficulty with us, is, to determine whether the participle ought, or ought not, to be allowed to a.s.sume _other_ characteristics of a noun, without dropping those of a participle, and without becoming wholly a noun. The liability of confounding the English participle with the verbal or participial adjective, amounts to nothing more than the occasional misnaming of a word in parsing; or perhaps an occasional ambiguity in the style of some writer, as in the following citation: "I am resolved, 'let the newspapers say what they please of _canva.s.sing_ beauties, _haranguing_ toasts, and _mobbing_ demireps,' not to believe one syllable."--_Jane West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p. 74. From these words, it is scarcely possible to find out, even with the help of the context whether these three sorts of ladies are spoken of as the canva.s.sers, haranguers, and mobbers, or as being canva.s.sed, harangued, and mobbed. If the prolixity and multiplicity of these observations transcend the reader's patience, let him consider that the questions at issue cannot be settled by the brief enunciation of loose individual opinions, but must be examined in the light of _all the a.n.a.logies and facts_ that bear upon them. So considerable are the difficulties of properly distinguis.h.i.+ng the participle from the verbal adjective in French, that that indefatigable grammarian, Girault Du Vivier, after completing his _Grammaire des Grammaires_ in two large octavo volumes, thought proper to _enlarge_ his instructions on this head, and to publish them in a separate book, (_Traite des Participes_,) though we have it on his own authority, that the rule for participles had already given rise to a greater number of dissertations and particular treatises than any other point in French grammar.

OBS. 24.--A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his _strength's_ declining."--"He was sensible of his _strength_ declining." In the former sentence, the noun _strength_ should be in the objective case, governed by _felt_; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by _declining_. Thus: "He felt his _strength_ declining;" i.e., "_felt it decline_."--"He was sensible of his _strength's_ declining;" i.e., "_of its decline_." These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable. This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th. But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.

OBS. 25.--Upon the cla.s.sification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science. And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate. The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once. The absolute necessity of cla.s.sing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof. Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of _verbs, participles_, and _nouns_, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them. For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T. O. Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English grammar. Of the participle the latter gives no formal definition, but he represents it as "_a form_, in which _the action_ denoted by _the verb_ is capable of being joined _to a noun_ as _its quality_, or accident."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is _a mere mode of the verb_ is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."--_Ib._, p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a _noun_: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking _s_ at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has _the comings_ in of a prince, may be ruined _by his_ own _gaming_, or his _wife's squandering_.'"--_Ib._, p.

144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the _s_, not at the end, but in the middle; for _comings-in_, (an obsolete expression for _revenues_,) is not two words, but one. Nor are _gaming_ and _squandering_, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles _become nouns_ when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "_is_" and "_may be_" are not nouns, but participles: "_Walking is_ the best exercise, though riding _may be_ more pleasant."--_Ib._, p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguis.h.i.+ng of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.

OBS. 26.--Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's--and no worse than what the reader may find in many an English Grammar now in use. This author's fault is not so much a lack of learning or of comprehension, as of order and discrimination. We see in him, that it is possible for a man to be well acquainted with English authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter miserably in describing the nature and uses of the English participle. Like many others, he does not acknowledge this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but commences his account of it by the following absurdity: "The participles _are adjectives_ derived from the verb; as, _pursuing, pursued, having pursued_."--_Elements of E. Gram._, p.

62. This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but merges the whole of the former species in a part of speech of which he had not even recognized the latter as a subdivision: "An adjective shows the _quality_ of a thing. Adjectives may be reduced to five cla.s.ses: 1. Common--2. Proper--3. Numeral--4. p.r.o.nominal--5.

Compound."--_Ib._, p. 47. Now, if "participles are adjectives," to which of these five cla.s.ses do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth cla.s.s, without which this distribution is false and incomplete: as, "a _loving_ father; an _approved_ copy." The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun. But says our author, "Participles, as simple adjectives, belong to _a noun_; as, a _loving_ father; an _approved_ copy;--as parts of the verb, they have the same government _as_ their verbs have; as, his father, _recalling the pleasures_ of past years, joined their party."--_Ib._, p. 170. What confusion is this! a complete jumble of adjectives, participles, and "parts of verbs!" Again: "Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early _rising_ is conducive to health; I like _writing_; we depend on _seeing_ you."--_Ib._, p. 171. Here _rising_ and _writing_ are nouns; but _seeing_ is a participle, because it is active and governs _you_, Compare this second jumble with the definition above. Again he proceeds: "To participles thus used, many of our best authors prefix the article; as, '_The being chosen_ did not prevent disorderly behaviour.' Bp. Tomline.

'_The not knowing how to pa.s.s_ our vacant hours.' Seed."--_Ib._, p. 171.

These examples I take to be bad English. Say rather, "The _state of election_ did not prevent disorderly behaviour."--"The _want of some entertainment for_ our vacant hours." The author again proceeds: "If a noun limits the meaning of a participle thus used, that noun is put in the genitive; as, your _father's coming_ was unexected."--_Ib._, p. 171. Here _coming_ is a noun, and no participle at all. But the author has a marginal note, "A possessive p.r.o.noun is equivalent to a genitive;" (_ibid._;) and he means to approve of possessives before active participles: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from _our having received the words_ through a French medium."--_Ib._, p. 116. This brings us again to that difficult and apparently unresolvable problem, whether participles as such, by virtue of their mixed gerundive character, can, or cannot, govern the possessive case; a question, about which, the more a man examines it, the more he may doubt.

OBS. 27.--But, before we say any thing more about the government of this case, let us look at our author's next paragraph on participles: "An active participle, preceded by _an article_ or by _a genitive_, is elegantly followed by the preposition _of_, before the substantive which follows it; as, _the_ compiling _of_ that book occupied several years; _his_ quitting _of_ the army was unexpected."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 171. Here the participial nouns _compiling_ and _quitting_ are improperly called active participles, from which they are certainly as fairly distinguished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever. And this complete distinction the author considers at least an elegance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition. And he immediately adds: "When this construction produces _ambiguity_, the expression _must be varied_."--_Ib._, p. 171. This suggestion is left without ill.u.s.tration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray's remarks, in which it is said: "A phrase in which the article precedes the _present participle_ and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition. 'He expressed the pleasure he had _in the hearing of_ the philosopher,' is _capable of a different sense_ from, 'He expressed the pleasure he had _in hearing_ the philosopher.'"--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 193; _R. C. Smith's Gram._, 161; _Ingersoll's_, 199; and others. Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word _hearing_ a "present participle;" and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful comma, still more absurdly supposes it ambiguous: whereas the phrase, "in the hearing _of the philosopher_," means only, "in the _philosopher's_ hearing;" and not, "in hearing the philosopher," or, "in hearing _of_ the philosopher." But the true question is, would it be right to say, "He expressed the pleasure he had in the _philosopher's_ hearing _him_?" For here it would be _equivocal_ to say, "in the philosopher's hearing _of_ him;" and some aver, that _of_ would be wrong, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear. But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and compare it with his own doctrines. To say, "from _our_ having received _of_ the words through a French medium," would certainly be no elegance; and if it be not an ambiguity, it is something worse. The expression, then, "must be varied." But varied how? Is it right without the _of_, though contrary to the author's rule for elegance?

OBS. 28.--The observations which have been made on this point, under the rule for the possessive case, while they show, to some extent, the inconsistencies in doctrine, and the improprieties of practice, into which the difficulties of the mixed participle have betrayed some of our princ.i.p.al grammarians, bring likewise the weight of much authority and reason against the custom of blending without distinction the characteristics of nouns and participles in the same word or words; but still they may not be thought sufficient to prove this custom to be altogether wrong; nor do they pretend to have fully established the dogma, that such a construction is in no instance admissible. They show, however, that possessives before participles are _seldom_ to be approved; and perhaps, in the present instance, the meaning might be quite as well expressed by a common substantive, or the regular participial noun: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from _our reception of_ the words--or _our receiving of_ the words--through a French medium." But there are some examples which it is not easy to amend, either in this way, or in any other; as, "The miscarriages of youth have very much proceeded from _their being imprudently indulged_, or _left_ to themselves."--_Friends' N. E.

Discipline_, p. 13. And there are instances too, of a similar character, in which the possessive case cannot be used. For example: "n.o.body will doubt of _this being_ a sufficient proof."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 66. "But instead of _this being_ the fact of the case, &c."--_Butlers a.n.a.logy_, p.

137. "There is express historical or traditional evidence, as ancient as history, of the _system_ of religion _being taught_ mankind by revelation."--_Ibid._ "From _things_ in it _appearing_ to men foolishness."--_Ib._, p. 175. "As to the consistency of the _members_ of our society _joining_ themselves to those called free-masons."--_N. E.

Discip._, p. 51. "In _either of these cases happening_, the _person charging_ is at liberty to bring the matter before the church, who are the only _judges_ now _remaining_."--_Ib._, p. 36; _Extracts_, p. 57. "Deriving its efficacy from the _power of G.o.d fulfilling_ his purpose."--_Religious World_, Vol. ii, p. 235. "We have no idea of any certain _portion of time intervening_ between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 33: _Murray's_, i, 70; _Emmons's_, 41; and others. The following example therefore, however the participle may seem to be the leading word in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: "The reason and time of the _Son of G.o.d's becoming_ man."--_Brown's Divinity_, p. xxii. Many writers would here be satisfied with merely omitting the possessive sign; as does Churchill, in the following example: "The chief cause of this appears to me to lie in _grammarians having considered_ them solely as the signs of tense."--_New Gram._, p. 243. But this sort of construction, too, whenever the noun before the participle is not the leading word in sense, is ungrammatical.

In stead, therefore, of stickling for choice between two such errors, we ought to adopt some better expression; as, "The reason and time of the _Saviour's incarnation_."--"The chief cause of this appears to me to _be, that_ grammarians _have_ considered them solely as signs of tense."

OBS. 29.--It is certain that the noun or p.r.o.noun which "limits the meaning of a participle," cannot always be "put in the _genitive_" or _possessive_ case; for the sense intended sometimes positively forbids such a construction, and requires the objective: as, "A syllable consists of one or more _letters forming_ one sound."--_Allen's Gram._, p. 29. The word _representing_ or _denoting_ would here be better than _forming_, because the letters do not, strictly speaking, _form_ the sound. But chiefly let it be noticed, that the word _letters_ could not with any propriety have been put in the possessive case. Nor is it always necessary or proper, to prefer that case, where the sense may be supposed to admit it; as, "'The example which Mr. Seyer has adduced, of the _gerund governing_ the genitive of the agent.' Dr. Crombie."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 237. "Which possibly might have been prevented by _parents doing_ their duty."--_N. E. Discipline_, p.

187. "As to the seeming contradiction of _One being_ Three, and _Three_ One."--_Religious World_, Vol. ii, p. 113. "You have watched _them climbing_ from chair to chair."--PIERPONT: _Liberator_, Vol. x, p. 22.

"Whether the world came into being as it is, by an intelligent _Agent forming_ it thus, or not."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 129. "In the farther supposition of necessary _agents being_ thus rewarded and punished."--_Ib._, p. 140. "He grievously punished the _Israelites murmuring_ for want of water."--_Leslie, on Tythes_, p. 21. Here too the words, _gerund, parents, One, Three, them, Agent, agents_, and _Israelites_, are rightly put in the objective case; yet doubtless some will think, though I do not, that they might as well have been put in the possessive. Respectable writers sometimes use the latter case, where the former would convey the same meaning, and be more regular; as, "Which is used, as active verbs often are, without its _regimen's_ being expressed."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 302. Omit the apostrophe and _s_; and, if you please, the word _being_ also. "The daily instances of _men's_ dying around us."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 113. Say rather,--"of _men_ dying around us." "To prevent _our_ rashly engaging in arduous or dangerous enterprises."--_Brown's Divinity_, p. 17. Say, "To prevent _us from_," &c.

The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong: "The kitchen too now begins to give 'dreadful note of preparation;' not from _armourers_ accomplis.h.i.+ng the knights, but from the _shop maid's_ chopping _force meat_, the _apprentice's_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman's_ receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table."--_West's Letters to a Lady_, p. 66. It should be--"not from _armorers_ accomplis.h.i.+ng the knights, but from the _shopmaid_ chopping _forcemeat_, the _apprentice_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman_ receiving," &c. The nouns are the princ.i.p.al words, and the participles are adjuncts. They might be separated by commas, if semicolons were put where the commas now are.

OBS. 30.--Our authors, good and bad, critics and no critics, with few exceptions, write sometimes the objective case before the participle, and sometimes the possessive, under precisely the same circ.u.mstances; as, "We should, presently, be sensible of the _melody_ suffering."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 122. "We should, presently, be sensible of the _melody's_ suffering."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 327. "We _shall_ presently be sensible of the _melody_ suffering."--_Murray's Exercises_, 8vo, p. 60. "We shall presently be sensible of the _melody's_ suffering."--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p. 195. "And I explain what is meant by the nominative _case governing_ the verb, and by the _verb agreeing_ with its nominative case."--_Rand's Gram._, p. 31. "Take the verb _study_, and speak of _John's studying_ his lesson, at different times."--_Ib._, p. 53. "The following are examples of the nominative _case being used_ instead of the objective."--_J. M. Putnam's Gram._, p. 112. "The following are examples of an _adverb's qualifying_ a whole sentence."--_Ib._, p. 128. "Where the noun is the name of a _person_, the cases may also be distinguished by the _nominative's_ answering to WHO, and the _objective_ to WHOM."--_Hart's Gram._, p. 46. "This depends chiefly on _their_ being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel _sound_ being long or short."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 182. "When they speak of a _monosyllable_ having the grave or the acute accent."--_Walker's Key_, p. 328. Here some would erroneously prefer the possessive case before "_having_;" but, if any amendment can be effected it is only by inserting _as_ there. "The _event of Maria's loving_ her brother."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 55. "Between that and the _man being_ on it."--_Ib._, p. 59. "The fact of _James placing_ himself."--_Ib._, p. 166. "The event of the _persons' going_."--_Ib._, p.

165. Here _persons'_ is carelessly put for _person's_, i.e., _James's_: the author was _parsing_ the puerile text, "James went into a store and placed himself beside Horatio."--_Ib._, p. 164. And I may observe, in pa.s.sing, that Murray and Blair are both wrong in using commas with the adverb _presently_ above.

OBS. 31.--It would be easy to fill a page with instances of these two cases, the objective and the possessive, used, as I may say, indiscriminately; nor is there any other principle by which we can determine which of them is right, or which preferable, than that the leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in the construction, and that the participle, if it remain such, ought rather to relate to its noun, as being the adjunct, than to govern it in the possessive, as being the princ.i.p.al term. To what extent either of these cases may properly be used before the participle, or in what instances either of them may be preferable to the other, it is not very easy to determine. Both are used a great deal too often, filling with blemishes the style of many authors: the possessive, because the participle is not the name of any thing that can be possessed; the objective, because no construction can be right in which the relation of the terms is not formed according to the sense. The former usage I have already criticised to a great extent. Let one example suffice here: "There can be no objection to a _syllable's being long_, on the ground of _its not being so long_, or so much protracted, as some other long syllables are."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer _syllable_ to _syllable's_, but none would be apt to put _it_ for _its_, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a _syllable as being long_, on the ground _that it is not so long_ as some other syllables."

OBS. 32.--It should be observed, that the use of _as_ between the participle and the noun is _very often_ better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military _success as forming_ a claim to civil position."--_Boston Daily Advertiser_. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any _one being chosen_ for a pattern."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its _authenticity being shaken_, it has been rendered more sure than ever."-- _West's Letters_, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper _candidate being nominated_ by either party."--_Liberator_, Vol. x.

p. 9. "On the first _stone being thrown_, it was returned by a fire of musketry."--_Ib._, p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent _person being circ.u.mvented_ by bribery."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 276. "Whose principles forbid _them taking_ part in the administration of the government."-- _Liberator_, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross _bodies being_ ourselves."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 150. "In consequence of this _revelation being made_."--_Ib._, p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the subst.i.tution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "_Scarcely is_ any one _ever_ chosen for a pattern."-- "_Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken_, has been rendered more sure than ever."--"When there is no longer a possibility _that_ a proper candidate _will be_ nominated by either party."--"_As soon as_ the first stone _was_ thrown, _there_ was returned a fire of musketry."--"To raise a cry, _as if_ an innocent person _had been_ circ.u.mvented by bribery."-- "Whose principles forbid them _to take_ part in the administration of the government."--"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies _are_ ourselves."--"In consequence of this revelation _which is_ made."

OBS. 33.--A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some _late writers_ have discarded a phraseology which appears un.o.bjectionable, and subst.i.tuted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady _Macbeth's_ walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady _Macbeth_ walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.'

This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, _Lady Macbeth_; whereas the meaning is, not that _Lady Macbeth_, but her _walking in her sleep_, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my _horse running_ to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."-- _Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram._, p. 15. (See _Crombie's Treatise_, p.

288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. _A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case_; as, Much will depend on the _pupil's composing_ frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my _horse running_ to-day?

means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my _horse's running_? means, he _has_ run, do you think he ran well?"-- _Lennie's Gram._, p. 91; _Brace's Gram._, 94. See _Bullions's Gram._, p.

107; _Hiley's_, 94; _Murray's_, 8vo. 195: _Ingersoll's_, 201: and many others.

OBS. 34.--Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word _walking_, preceded by a possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a _noun_, and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use of possessives before _participles_, and even to hold all phraseology of this kind "un.o.bjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of that blunder is different from the thousand errors or irregularities which they intend to shelter under it. To call a lady an "incident," is just as far from any Latin idiom, as it is from good English; whereas the very thing which they thus object to at first, they afterwards approve in this text: "What think you of my _horse running_ to-day?" This phraseology corresponds with "_the Latin idiom_;" and it is this, that, in fact, they begin with p.r.o.nouncing to be "less correct" than, "What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day?"

OBS. 35.--Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction of signification; as, if "the _horse's running_ to-day," must needs imply a past action, though, (they suppose,) "the _pupil's composing_ frequently,"

or, "the _horse running_ to-day," signifies a _future_ one. This distinction of time is altogether _imaginary_; and the notion, that to prefer the possessive case before participles, is merely to withstand an error of "_some late writers_," is altogether false. The instructions above cited, therefore, determine nothing rightly, except the inaccuracy of one very uncommon form of expression. For, according to our best grammarians, the simple mode of correction there adopted will scarcely be found applicable to any other text. It will not be right where the participle happens to be transitive, or even where it is qualified by an adverb. From their subsequent examples, it is plain that these gentlemen think otherwise; but still, who can understand what they mean by "_the common mode of expression_?" What, for instance, would they subst.i.tute for the following very inaccurate expression from the critical belles-lettres of Dr. Blair? "A _mother accusing_ her son, and _accusing_ him of such actions, _as having_ first _bribed_ judges to condemn her husband, and _having_ afterwards _poisoned_ him, _were circ.u.mstances_ that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."--_Blair's Lectures_, p.

274. Would they say. "A _mother's accusing her son_, &c., _were circ.u.mstances_," &c.? Is this their "common mode of expression?" and if it is, do they not make "common" what is no better English than the Doctor's?

If, to accuse a son, and to accuse him greatly, can be considered different circ.u.mstances of the same prosecution, the sentence may be corrected thus: "A _mother's_ accusing _of_ her son, and _her charging of_ him _with_ such actions, as _those of_ having first bribed judges to condemn her husband, and having afterwards poisoned him, were circ.u.mstances that naturally raised strong prejudices against Cicero's client."

OBS. 36.--On several occasions, as in the tenth and twelfth observations on Rule 4th, and in certain parts of the present series, some notice has been taken of the equivalence or difference of meaning, real or supposed, between the construction of the possessive, and that of an other case, before the participle; or between the participial and the substantive use of words in _ing_. Dr. Priestley, to whom, as well as to Dr. Lowth, most of our grammarians are indebted for some of their doctrines respecting this sort of derivatives, pretends to distinguish them, both as const.i.tuting different parts of speech, and as conveying different meanings. In one place, he says, "When a word ending in _ing_ is preceded by an article, it seems to be used as a _noun_; and therefore _ought not to govern an other word_, without the intervention of a preposition."--_Priestley's Gram._, p.

157. And in an other: "Many nouns are derived from verbs, and end in _ing_, like participles of the present tense. The difference between these nouns and participles is often overlooked, and the accurate distinction of the two senses not attended to. If I say, What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day, I use the NOUN _running_, and suppose the horse to have actually run; for it is the same thing as if I had said, What think you of _the running of_ my horse. But if I say, What think you of my _horse running_ to-day, I use the PARTICIPLE, and I mean to ask, whether it be proper that my horse should run or not: which, therefore, supposes that he had not then run."--_Ib._, p. 122. Whatever our other critics say about the _horse running_ or the _horse's running_, they have in general borrowed from Priestley, with whom the remark originated, as it here stands. It appears that Crombie, Murray, Maunder, Lennie, Bullions, Ingersoll, Barnard, Hiley, and others, approve the doctrine thus taught, or at least some part of it; though some of them, if not all, thereby contradict themselves.

ODS. 37.--By the two examples here contrasted, Priestley designed to establish a distinction, not for these texts only, but for _all similar expressions_--a distinction both of the noun from the participle, and of the different senses which he supposed these two constructions to exhibit.

In all this, there is a complete failure. Yet with what remarkable ductility and implicitness do other professed critics take for granted what this superficial philologer so hastily prescribes! By acknowledging with reference to such an application of them, that the two constructions above are both _good English_, our grammarians do but the more puzzle their disciples respecting the choice between them; just as Priestley himself was puzzled, when he said, "So we _may either say_, I remember _it being reckoned_, a great exploit; or, _perhaps more elegantly_, I remember _its being reckoned_, &c."--_Gram._, p. 70. Murray and others omit this "_perhaps_," and while they allow both forms to be good, decidedly prefer the latter; but neither Priestley, nor any of the rest, ever pretended to discern in these a difference of signification, or even of parts of speech.

For my part, in stead of approving either of these readings about the "_great exploit_," I have rejected both, for reasons which have already been given; and now as to the first two forms of the _horserace question_, so far as they may strictly be taken for models, I cannot but condemn them also, and for the same reasons: to which reasons may be joined the additional one, that neither expression is well adapted to the sense which the author himself gives to it in his interpretation. If the Doctor designed to ask, "Do you think my horse ran well to-day?" or, "Do you think it proper for my horse to run to-day?" he ought to have used one or the other of these unequivocal and un.o.bjectionable expressions. There is in fact between the others, no such difference of meaning as he imagines; nor does he well distinguish "the NOUN _running_" from the PARTICIPLE _runnning_; because he apparently allows the word, in both instances, to be qualified by the adverb _to-day_.[422]

OBS. 38.--It is clear, that the participle in _ing_ partakes sometimes the nature of its verb and _an adjective_; so that it relates to a noun, like an adjective, and yet implies time, and, if transitive, governs an object, like a verb: as, "Horses _running_ a race." Hence, by dropping what here distinguishes it as a participle, the word may become an adjective, and stand before its noun; as, "A _running_ brook." So, too, this participle sometimes partakes the nature of its verb and _a noun_; so that it may be governed by a preposition, like a noun, though in itself it has no cases or numbers, but is indeclinable: as "In _running_ a race." Hence, again, by dropping what distinguishes it as a participle, it may become a noun; as, "_Running_ is a safer sport than _wrestling_." Now, if to a participle we prefix something which makes it an adjective, we also take away its regimen, by inserting a preposition; as, "A doctrine _un_deserving _of_ praise,"--"A man _un_compromising _in_ his principles." So, if we put before it an article, an adjective, or a possessive, and thus give to the participle a substantive character or relation, there is reason to think, that we ought, in like manner, to take away its regimen, and its adverb too, if it have any, and be careful also to distinguish this noun from the participial adjective; as, "_The_ running _of_ a race,"--"_No_ racing _of_ horses,"--"_Your_ deserving _of_ praise."--"A _man's_ compromising _of_ his principles." With respect to the articles, or any adjectives, it seems now to be generally conceded, that these are signs of _substantives_; and that, if added to participles, they must cause them to be taken, in all respects, _substantively_. But with respect to possessives before participles, the common practice of our writers very extensively indulges the mixed construction of which I have said so much, and concerning the propriety of which, the opinions of our grammarians are so various, so confused, and so self-contradictory.

OBS. 39.--Though the participle with a nominative or an objective before it, is not _in general_, equivalent to the verbal noun or the mixed participle with a possessive before it; and though the significations of the two phrases are often so widely different as to make it palpably absurd to put either for the other; yet the instances are not few in which it makes little or no difference _to the sense_, which of the two forms we prefer, and therefore, in these instances, I would certainly choose the more simple and regular construction; or, where a better than either can readily be found, reject both. It is also proper to have some regard to the structure of other languages, and to the a.n.a.logy of General Grammar. If there be "some late writers" who are chargeable with "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," there are perhaps more who as idly affect what they suppose "consonant with the genius of our language." I allude to those who would prefer the possessive case in a text like the following: "Wherefore is this noise of the _city being_ in an uproar?"'--_1 Kings_, i, 41. "Quid sibi vult clamor civitatis tumultuantis?"--_Vulgate_. "[Greek: _Gis hae phonae taes poleos aechousaes_];"--_Septuagint_. Literally: "What [_means_] the clamour of the _city resounding_?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui est ainsi emue?"--_French Bible_. Literally: "What means this noise of the _city which is so moved_?" Better English: "What means this noise _with which the city rings_?" In the following example, there is a seeming imitation of the foregoing Latin or Greek construction; but it may well be doubted whether it would be any improvement to put the word "_disciples_"

in the possessive case; nor is it easy to find a third form which would be better than these: "Their difficulties will not be increased by the intended _disciples having ever resided_ in a Christian country."--_West's Letters_, p. 119.

OBS. 40.--It may be observed of these different relations between participles and other words, that _nouns_ are much more apt to be put in the nominative or the objective case, than are _p.r.o.nouns_. For example: "There is no more of moral principle in the way of _abolitionists nominating_ their own candidates, than in that of _their voting_ for those nominated by others."--GERRIT SMITH: _Liberator_, Vol. X, p. 17. Indeed, a p.r.o.noun of the nominative or the objective case is hardly ever used in such a relation, unless it be so obviously the leading word in sense, as to preclude all question about the construction.[423] And this fact seems to make it the more doubtful, whether it be proper to use nouns in that manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered the leading word in sense, we are at least under no _necessity_ of subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought desirable to vary the foregoing example, it may easily be done, thus: "There is no more of moral principle _to prevent abolitionists_ from nominating their own candidates, than _to prevent them from_ voting for those nominated by others." The following example is much like the preceding, but less justifiable: "We see comfort, security, strength, pleasure, wealth, and prosperity, all flowing from _men combining together_; and misery, weakness, and poverty, ensuing from _their acting separately_ or in opposition to each other."--_West's Letters_, p. 133. Say rather,--"from _men's combining-together_," or, "from _the just combination of men in society_;" and,--"from their _separate action_, or _their_ opposition to _one an other_." Take an other example: "If _illorum_ be governed here of _negotii_, it must be in this order, _gratia negotii illorum videndi_; and this is, for the sake of their _business_ being seen, and not, for the sake of _them_ being seen."--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, p. 352. Here the learned critic, in disputing Perizonius's resolution of the phrase, "_illorum videndi gratia_" has written disputable English. But, had he _affected the Latin idiom_, a nearer imitation of it would have been,--"for the sake of their _business's being seen_, and not for the sake of _their being seen_." Or nearer still,--"for the sake of _seeing of their business_, and not, for the sake of _seeing of them_." An elegant writer would be apt to avoid all these forms, and say,--"for the sake of _seeing their business_;" and,--"_for the sake of seeing them_;"

though the former phrase, being but a version of bad Latin, makes no very good sense in any way.

OBS. 41.--Idioms, or peculiarities of expression, are never to be approved or valued, but according to their convenience, utility, or elegance. By this rule, some phrases that are not positively barbarous, may yet be ungrammatical, and a construction that is sometimes allowable, may yet be quite unworthy to be made or reckoned, "the common mode of expression."

Thus, in Latin, the infinitive verb is occasionally put for a noun, and taken to signify a property possessed; as, "_Tuum scire_, [thy to know,]

the same as _tua scientia_, thy knowledge. Pers."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 153.

So, in English, the participle in _ing_ is often taken substantively, when it does not actually become a substantive or noun; as, "Thy _knowing_ this,"--"Our _doing_ so."--_West_. Such forms of speech, because they are idiomatical, seldom admit of any literal translation, and are never naturalized by any transfer from one language or dialect into an other; nor is it proper for grammarians to justify them, in vernacular speech, except as figures or anomalies that ought not to be generally imitated. It cannot be truly affirmed, that the genius of our language ever requires that participles, as such, should a.s.sume the relations of a noun, or govern the possessive case; nor, on the other hand, can it be truly denied, that very excellent and learned writers do sometimes make use of such phraseology.

Without disrespect to the many users and approvers of these anomalies, I set down for bad English every mixed construction of the participle, for which the language can furnish an equivalent expression that is more simple and more elegant. The extent to which these comparative barbarisms now abound in English books, and the ridiculous fondness for them, which has been shown by some writers on English grammar, in stead of amounting to any argument in their favour, are in fact, plain proofs of the necessity of an endeavour to arrest so obvious and so pernicious an innovation.

OBS. 42.--A late author observes as follows: "That the English gerund, participle, or verbal noun, in _ing_, has both an active and a pa.s.sive signification, there can be little doubt.[424] Whether the Latin gerund has precisely a similar import, or whether it is only active, it may be difficult, and, indeed, after all, it is not of much moment, to ascertain."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 234. The gerund in Latin most commonly governs the case of its own verb, as does the active participle, both in Latin and English: as, "Efferor studio _patres vestros videndi_.

Cic. de sen. 23."--_Lily's Gram._, p. 96. That is, "I am transported, with a desire of _seeing your fathers_." But sometimes we find the gerund taken substantively and made to govern the genitive. Or,--to adopt the language of an old grammarian:--"Interdum _non invenuste_ additur gerundiis in _di_ etiam genitivus pluralis: ut, 'Quum _illorum videndi_ gratia me in forum contulissem.'--'_Novarum_ [qui] _spectandi_ faciunt copiam.' Ter. Heaut.