« EelmineJätka »
Some grammatical doubts in regard to English construction,
without question. In the second, thus : “ Much de
pends upon the observing of them of the rule, and
error will be the consequence of the neglecting of " them of it." Still worse. But it may be thought that as, in the last example, the participial noun gets a double regimen, this occasions all the impropriety and confusion. I shall therefore make the experiment on a more simple sentence. " Much will de
pend on your pupil's composing, but more on his read
ing frequently." Would it be English to say, " Much will depend on the composing of your pupil,
but more on the reading of bim frequently?''-No certainly. If this argument then prove any thing, it proves too much, and consequently can be no criterion.
The only other objection mentioned is, that “ being observed and being neglected, are not nouns.' It is acknowledged that in the common acceptation of the word, they are not nouns, but passive participles; neither is the active participle commonly a noun, neither is the infinitive of the verb active or passive, a noun. Yet the genius of the tongue permits that all these may be construed as nouns in certain
The infinitive in particular is employed substantively when it is made either the nominative or the regimen of a verh. Now in this way not the infinitive only, but along with it all the words in construction are understood as one compound noun, as in the examples following : “ To love God and our ueigh
stated and examined.
" bour is a duty incumbent on us all,” and “ The “ gospel strongly inculcates on us this important les
son, to love God and our neighbour.” But in no other situation can such clauses supply the place of nouns. They are never used in construction with other nouns followed by a preposition. The quotation brought from Spenser is, I suspect, a mere Grecism, which was not in his time more than it is at present conformable to the English idiom. For is the only preposition that seems ever to have been construed with such clauses, after another verb. And even this usage is now totally laid aside.
I Am of opinion, therefore, upon the whole, that as the idiom in question is analogical, supported by good use, and sometimes very expedient, it ought not to be entirely repudiated.
THE END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
ERRATA. TO VOL. I.
13. 64. 87.
Page 1. line 12, for touches, read teaches.
6, for inclination, read imitation,
-1.9. for neces-, read necessary.
6, for conception, read conceptions. 132.
10, for complete, read complex. 149.
19, second word of the line, for different, read general. 16о.
5, after individual, read to another individual. 168, 4, note,- for reason, road reasons, 173.
4, for an, read the. 174. 8, after produced, read or, without any evidence produced,
---for deliberace, road deliberative. 192.
4, from bottom-for nor, read or. 203. 10, for arrester, read attester. 212. 19, after and, read not.
17, for in, read is. 232. II, dele our. 236. 15, for metal, read mental. 244. 11, for due, read new. 250. 2, note for forte, read sorte. 276. 18, for continue, read contribute. 289
3, after that, read where there is no law. 290. 7, before we, read though. 318. 15, for composition, read preposition. 324. 11, for nominal, read nominative.
last line but one--for intelligible, read unintelligible.
14, for between, read and. 382, 7, for credulity, read credibility. 393. 9, for liberal, read literal. 405. 17, for distinction, read distinctions.
3, after ought, dele not.
The Bookbinder is requested to attend to the cancelled leaves.