-
Chapter IV: Some Grammatical Doubts in regard to English Construction stated and examined.
- Southern Illinois University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
204 THE PHILOSOPHY [BOOK II. the Deity an august Cause, the author hath very improperly connected with this appellative some words totally unsuitable; for who ever heard of a cause tatting ca?'e about an action? I shall produce but one other instance :-" Neither implies that there are virtuous habits and accomplishments already attained by the possessor, but they certainly show an unprejudiced capacity towards them." 9 In the first clause of this sentence there is a gross inconsistency; we are informed of habits and accomplishments that are possessed but not attained; in the second clause there is a double impropriety, the participial adjective is not suited to the substantive with which it is construed; nor is the subsequent preposition expressive of the sense. Supposing then, that the word possessor hath been used inadvertently for person, or some other general term, the sense may be exhibited thus: "Neither implies that there are virtuous habits and accomplishments already attained by this person; but they certainly show that his mind is not prejudiced against them, and that it hath a capacity of attaining them." Under this head I might consider that impropriety which results from the use of metaphors, or other tropes, wherein the similitude to the subject, or connexion with it, is too remote; also that which results from the construction of words with any trope which are not applicable in the literal sense. The former errs chiefly against vivacity; the latter against elegance. Of the one, therefore, I shall have occasion to speak, when I consider the catachresis, of the other when I treat of mixed metaphor. I have now finished what was intended on the subject of grammatical purity; the first, and in some respects, the most essential of all the virtues of elocution. I have illustrated the three different ways in which it may be violated; the barbarism, when the words employed are not English; the solecism, when the construction is not English; the imp1'opriety, when the meaning in which any English word or phrase is used, by a writer or speaker, is not the sense which good use hath assigned to it. CHAPTER IV. Some Grammatical Doubts in regard to English Construction stated and examined. BEFORE I dismiss this article altogether, it will not be amiss to consider a little some dubious points in construction, on which our critics appear not to be agreed. 9 Guardian, No. 34. CHAP. IV.] OF RHETORIC. 205 One of the most eminent of them makes this remark upon the neuter verbs: "A neuter verb cannot become a passive. In a neuter verb the agent and the object are the same, and cannot be separated even in imagination, as in the examples to sleep, to walk; but when the verb is passive, one thing is acted upon by another, really or by supposition different from it." 1 To this is subjoined in the margin the following note: "That some neuter verbs take a passive form, but without a passive signification, has been observed above. Here we speak oftheir becoming both in form and signification passive, and shall endeavour further to illustrate the rule by example. To split, like many other English verbs, has both an active and a neuter signification; according to the former we say, The force of gunpowder split the rock; according to the latter, The ship split upon the rock :-and converting the verb active into a passive, we may say, The rock was split by the force of gunpowder ; or, The ship was split upon the rock. But we cannot say with any propriety, turning the verb neuter into a passive, The rock was split upon by the ship." This author's reasoning, so far as concerns verbs properly neuter, is so manifestly just that it commands a full assent from everyone that understands it. I differ from him only in regard to the application. In my apprehension, what may grammatically be named the neuter verbs, are not near so numerous in our tongue as he imagines. I do not enter into the difference between verbs absolutely neuter, and intransitively active. I concur with him in thinking, that this distinction holds more of metaphysics than of grammar. But by verbs grammatically neuter, I mean such as are not followed either by an accusative, or by a preposition and a noun; for I take this to be the only grammatical criterion with us. Of this kind is the simple and primitive verb to laugh; accordingly to say he...