"The respect shown to the candidate would have been greater, if it had been practicable, to have afforded repeated opportunities to the freeholders to have annexed their names to the address;" they should be, "if it had been practicable to afford," and "to annex, their names."

"From his biblical knowledge, he appears to study the Holy Scriptures with great attention:" it ought to be; "he appears to have studied," &c.

"I cannot excuse the remissness of those, whose business it should have been, as it certainly was their interest, to have interposed their good offices:" "There were two circumstances, which made it necessary for them to have lost no time:" "History painters would have found it difficult, to have invented such a species of beings." In these three examples, the phrases should have been, "to interpose, to lose, to invent.”

It is proper to inform the learner, that, in order to express the past time with the defective verb ought, the perfect of the infinitive must always be used: as, "He ought to have done it." When we use this verb, this is the only possible way to distinguish the past from the present.

In support of the positions advanced under this rule, we can produce the sentiments of the most eminent grammarians. There are, however, some writers on grammar, who strenuously maintain, that the governed verb in the infinitive ought to be in the past tense, when the verb which governs it, is in the past time. Though this cannot be admitted in the instances which are controverted under this rule, or in any instances of a similar nature, yet there can be no doubt that, in many cases, in which the thing referred to preceded the governing verb, it would be proper and allowable. We may say; "From a conversation I once had with him, he appeared to have studied Homer with great care and judgment." It would be proper also to say, "from his conversation, he appears to have studied Homer, with great care and judgment;" "That unhappy man is supposed to have died by violence." These examples are not only consistent with our rule, but they confirm and illustrate it. It is the tense of the governing verb only, that marks what is called the absolute time; the tense of the verb governed, marks solely its relative time with respect to the other.

To assert, as some writers do, that verbs in the infinitive mood have no tenses, no relative distinctions of present, past, and future, is inconsistent with just grammatical views of the subject. That these verbs associate with verbs in all the tenses, is no proof of their having no peculiar time of their Whatever period the governing verb assumes, whether present, past, or future, the governed verb in the infinitive

own.

always respects that period, and its time is calculated from it. Thus, the time of the infinitive may be before, after, or the same as, the time of the governing verb, according as the thing signified by the infinitive is supposed to be before, after, or present with, the thing denoted by the governing verb. It is, therefore, with great propriety, that tenses are assigned to verbs of the infinitive mood. The point of time from which they are computed, is of no consequence; since present, past, and future, are completely applicable to them.

It may not be improper to observe, that though it is often correct to use the perfect of the infinitive after the governing verb, yet there are particular cases, in which it would be better to give the expression a different form. Thus, instead of saying, "I wish to have written to him sooner," "I then wished to have written to him sooner," "He will one day wish to have written sooner;" it would be more perspicuous and forcible, as well as more agreeable to the practice of good writers, to say; "I wish that I had written to him sooner," "I then wished that I had written to him sooner," "He will one day wish that he had written sooner."

Should the justness of these strictures be admitted, the past infinitive would not be superseded, though some grammarians have supposed it would: there would still be numerous occasions for the use of it; as we may perceive by a few examples. "It would ever afterwards have been a source of pleasure, to have found him wise and virtuous." "To have deferred his repentance longer, would have disqualified him for repenting at all." "They will then see, that to have faithfully performed their duty, would have been their greatest consolation."

In relating things that were formerly expressed by another person, we often meet with modes of expression similar to the following:

"The travellers who lately came from the south of England, said that the harvest there was very abundant:" "I met Charles yesterday, who told me that he is very happy:" "The professor asserted, that a resolute adherence to truth is an indispensable duty" "The preacher said very audibly, that whatever was useful, was good."

In referring to declarations of this nature, the present tense must be used, if the position is immutably the same at all times, or supposed to be so: as, "The bishop declared, that virtue is always advantageous:" not, "was always advantageous." But if the assertion referred to something that is not always the same, or supposed to be so, the past tense must be applied: as, "George said that he was very happy:" not, "is very happy."

The following sentences will fully exemplify, to the young grammarian, both the parts of this rule. "He declared to us, that he was afraid of no man: because conscious innocence gives firmness of mind." "He protested, that he believed what was said, because it appeared to him probable." "Charles asserted, that it was his opinion, that men always succeed, when they use precaution and pains." "The doctor declared to his audience, that if virtue suffers some pains, she is amply recompensed by the pleasures which attend her."

If this rule should not be completely applicable to every case which an ingenious critic may state, the author presumes that it will be found very generally useful.

The examples which have been adduced, to illustrate and strengthen the positions contained under the several parts of this Thirteenth rule of Syntax, will not, we hope, be deemed too numerous: they have been given so copiously, that the student may be the better informed and impressed, by surveying the subject at large, and in different points of view. The author has not advanced any instances, or corrections, which he does not think are pertinent and strictly defensible. But if some of them should be less obvious than others, and if a few of them should be gratuitously conceded to criticism, the candid reader will perceive, that there would still remain unimpeached, a number amply sufficient to confirm the dif ferent rules and positions. This observation may be properly extended to several other parts of the present work. A rule is not to be invalidated, because all the examples given under it, are not equally obvious, or even equally tenable.

RULE XIV.

PARTICIPLES have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived: as, "I am weary with hearing him;" "She is instructing us;" "The tutor is admonishing Charles."*

See Vol. ii. Part 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 14.

1. PARTICIPLES are sometimes governed by the article; for the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive, and must have the preposition of after it as, "These are the rules of grammar, by the observ ing of which, you may avoid mistakes." It would not be

Though the participle is not a part of speech distinct from the verb, yet as it forms a particular and striking part of the verb, and has some rules and observations which are peculiar to itself, we think it is entitled to a separate distinctive consideration.

proper to say, "by the observing which :" nor, "by observing of which;" but the phrase, without either article or preposition, would be right: as, "by observing which." The article a or an, has the same effect: as, "This was a betraying of the trust reposed in him."

This rule arises from the nature and idiom of our language, and from as plain a principle as any on which it is founded; namely, that a word which has the article before it, and the possessive preposition of after it, must be a noun; and if a noun, it ought to follow the construction of a noun, and not to have the regimen of a verb. It is the participial termination of this sort of words that is apt to deceive us, and make us treat them as if they were of an amphibious species, partly nouns and partly verbs.

The following are a few examples of the violation of this rule. "He was sent to prepare the way by preaching of re'pentance;" it ought to be, "by the preaching of repentance;" or, "by preaching repentance." "By the continual mortifying our corrupt affections;" it should be, "by the continual mortifying of," or, "by continually mortifying our corrupt affections." "They laid out themselves towards the advancing and promoting the good of it;" "towards advancing and promoting the good." "It is an overvaluing ourselves, to reduce every thing to the narrow measure of our capacities:" "it is overvaluing ourselves," or, "an overvaluing of ourselves." "Keeping of one day in seven," &c. it ought to be, "the keeping of one day;" or, "keeping one day."

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." When, therefore, we wish, for the sake of harmony or variety, to substitute one of these phraseologies for the other, we should previously consider, whether they are perfectly similar in the sentiments they convey.

2. The same observations, which have been made respecting the effect of the article and participle, appear to be applicable to the pronoun and participle, when they are simi larly associated: as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule, and error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it," instead of "their observing the rule, and their neglecting it." We shall perceive this more clearly, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, "Much depends upon Tyro's observ VOL. I.

27

ing of the rule," &c.; which is the same as, "Much depends on Tyro's observance of the rule." But, as this construction sounds rather harshly, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: "Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected:" or " on observing the rule; and-of neglecting it." This remark may be applied to several other modes of expression to be found in this work; which, though they are contended for as strictly correct, are not always the most eligible, on account of their unpleasant sound. See pages 45, 46, 65, 66, 176-179.

We sometimes meet with expressions like the following: "In forming of his, sentences, he was very exact:" "From calling of names, he proceeded to blows." But this is incorrect language; for prepositions do not, like articles and pronouns, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive; as we have shown above in the phrase, "By observing which." And yet 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."

66

66

3. As the perfect participle and the imperfect tense, are Sometimes different in their form, care must be taken that they be not indiscriminately used. It is frequently said, "He begun," for "he began;" "he run," for "he ran;" "He drunk," for he drank;" the participle being here used instead of the imperfect tense: and much more frequently the imperfect tense instead of the participle: as, "I had wrote," for "I had written;" "I was chose," for "I was chosen ;" "I have eat," for I have eaten." "His words were interwove with sighs;" "were interwoven." "He would have spoke;" "spoken." "He hath bore witness to his faithful servant;" "borne." "By this means he over-run his guide;" "over-ran." "The sun has rose;" "risen.” "His constitution has been greatly shook, but his mind is too strong to be shook by such causes;" "shaken," in both places. They were verses wrote on glass;" "written.” "Philosophers have often mistook the source of true happiness:" it ought to be, “mistaken."

66

The participle ending in ed is often improperly contracted. by changing ed into t: as, "In good behaviour he is not surpast by any pupil of the school.” "She was much distrest." They ought to be, “surpassed,“ “ distressed.”