the only proper criterion of this sort of verb. If, in the sentence, "Boys love to play," the former verb is transitive, as several respectable grammarians affirm; why not also in a thousand others; as, "Boys like to play;"-"Boys delight to play;"-" Boys long to play ;"-"The boys seem to play;" The boys cease to play;" The boys ought to play;"- The boys go out to play;" -The boys are gone out to play;"-"The boys are allowed to play ;" and the like? The construction in all is precisely the same, and the infinitive may follow one kind of verb just as well as an other. How then can the mere addition of this mood make any verb transitive? or where, on such a principle, can the line of distinction for transitive verbs be drawn? The infinitive, in fact, is governed by the preposition to; and the preceding verb, if it has no other object, is intransitive. It must, however, be confessed that some verbs which thus take the infinitive after them, cannot otherwise be intransitive; as, "A great mind disdains to hold any thing by courtesy."-Johnson's Life of Swift. "They require to be distinguished by a comma. Murray's Gram., p. 272.

OBS. 4.-A transitive verb, as I have elsewhere shown, may both govern the objective case, and be followed by an infinitive also; as, What have I to do with thee?"-John, ii, 4. This question, as one would naturally take it, implies, "I have nothing to do with thee;" and, by analogy, what is governed by have, and not by do; so that the latter verb, though not commonly intransitive, appears to be so here. Indeed the infinitive mood is often used without an objective, when every other part of the same verb would require one. Maunder's rule is, "Transitive verbs and participles govern either the objective case or the infinitive mode."-Comprehensive Gram., p. 14. Murray teaches, not only that, "The infinitive mood does the office of a substantive in the objective case; as, 'Boys love to play ;' but that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb; as, 'He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely."-See his Octavo Gram., pp. 184 and 194. And again: "Part of a sentence, as well as a noun or pronoun, may be said to be in the objective case, or to be put objectively, governed by the active verb; as, 'We sometimes see virtue in distress, but we should consider how great will be her ultimate reward.' Sentences or phrases under this circumstance, may be termed objective sentences or phrases."—Ib., p. 180.

OBS. 5.—If we admit that sentences, parts of sentences, infinitives, participles with their adjuncts, and other phrases, as well as nouns and pronouns, may be "in the objective case;" it will be no easy matter, either to define this case, or to determine what words do, or do not, govern it. The construction of infinitives and participles will be noticed hereafter. But on one of

* Wells, whose Grammar, in its first edition, divides verbs into “transitive, intransitive, and passive;" but whose late editions absurdly make all passives transitive; says, in his third edition, “A transitive verb is a verb that has some noun or pronoun for its object;" (p. 78 ) adopts, in his syntax, the old dogma, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case:" (3d Ed., p. 154;) and to this rule subjoins a series of remarks, so singularly fit to puzzle or mislead the learner, and withal so successful in winning the approbation of committees and teachers, that it may be worth while to notice most of them here.

“REM. Í.—A sentence or phrase often supplies the place of a noun or pronoun in the objective case; as, 'You see how few of these men have returned.'"-Wells's School Gram., “Third Thousand," p. 154; late Ed. § 215. According to this, must we not suppose verbs to be often transitive, when not made so by the author's definition? And if "see" is here transitive, would not other forms, such as are told, have been told, or are aware, be just as much so, if put in its place?

REM. 2.-An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective, when the verb and the noun depending upon it are of kindred signification; as, 'To live a blameless life; To run a race.'”—1b. Here verbs are absurdly called “intransitive," when, both in fact and by the foregoing definition, they are clearly transitive; or, at least, are, by many teachers, supposed to be so.

REM. 3.-Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which intransitive verbs are followed by objectives depending upon them; as, 'To look the subject fully in the face.'-Channing. They laughed him to scorn.'Matt. 9:24. And talked the night away.'-—Goldsmith."—1b. Here, again, verbs evidently made transitive by the construction, are, with strange inconsistency, called “intransitive." By these three remarks together, the distinction between transitives and intransitives must needs be extensively obscured in the mind of the learner. REM. 4.-Transitive verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed to govern two objectives; as, Ask him his opinion; This experience taught me a valuable lesson.'-Spare me yet this bitter cup.'-Hemans. I thrice presented him a kingly crown.'-Shakspeare.”—Ib. This rule not only

jumbles together several different constructions, such as would require different cases in Latin or Greek, but is evidently repugnant to the sense of many of the passages to which it is meant to be applied. Wells thinks, the practice of supplying a preposition, “is, in many cases, arbitrary, and does violence to an important and well established idiom of the language."-Ib. But how can any idiom be violated by a mode of parsing, which merely expounds its true meaning? If the dative case has the meaning of to, and the ablative has the meaning of from, how can they be expounded, in English, but by suggesting the particle, where it is omitted? For example: "Spare me yet [from] this bitter cup."-" Spare [to] me yet this joyous cup." This author says, "The rule for the government of two objectives by a verb, without the aid of a preposition, is adopted by Webster, Murray, Alexander, Frazee, Nutting, Perley, Goldsbury, J. M. Putnam, Hamlin, Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others."-Ib. Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. Such a rule as this, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited. Lindley Murray's remark, "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case," is applied only to words in apposition, and wrong even there; Perley's rule is only of "Some verbs of asking and teaching;" and Nutting's note, "It sometimes happens that one transitive verb governs two objective cases," is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.

"REM. 5.-Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed in the passive voice to govern a noun or pronoun; as, He was asked his opinion.'-Johnson. He had been refused shelter.'-Irving." -Ib., p. 155, § 215. Passive governing is not far from absurdity. Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of two sorts; the one elliptical, the other solecistical. The former text appears to mean, "He was asked for his opinion;"-or, "He was asked to give his opinion:" the latter should have been, "Shelter had been refused him;"-i. e., "to him." Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are corrected, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells's own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition. Having just given a rule, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this note: "This form of expression is anomalous, and might, in many cases, be improved. Thus, instead of saying, 'He was offered a seat in the council,' it would be preferable to say, 'A seat

Murray's examples, I would here observe, that the direct use of the infinitive for an objective noun is a manifest Grecism; as, "For to will is present with me; but to perform that which is good, I find not."—Octavo Gram., p. 184. That is, "the performance of that which is good, I find not." Or perhaps we may supply a noun after the verb, and take this text to mean, "But to perform that which is good, I find not the ability." Our Bible has it, "But how to perform that which is good. I find not;" as if the manner in which he might do good, was what the apostle found not: but Murray cites it differently, omitting the word how, as we see above. All active verbs to which something is subjoined by when, where, whence, how, or why, must be accounted intransitive, unless we suppose them to govern such nouns of time, place, degree, manner, or cause, as correspond to these connectives; as, “I know why she blushed." Here we might supply the noun reason, as, "I know the reason why she blushed;" but the word is needless, and I should rather parse know as being intransitive. As for "virtue in distress," if this is an "objective phrase," and not to be analyzed, we have millions of the same sort; but, if one should say, "Virtue in distress excites pity," the same phrase would demonstrate the absurdity of Murray's doctrine, because the two nouns hero take two different cases.

OBS. 6.-The word that, which is often employed to introduce a dependent clause, is, by some grammarians, considered as a pronoun, representing the clause which follows it; as, "I know that Messias cometh."-John, iv, 25. This text they would explain to mean, "Messias cometh, I know that;" and their opinion seems to be warranted both by the origin and by the usual import of the particle. But, in conformity to general custom, and to his own views of the practical purposes of grammatical analysis, the author has ranked it with the conjunctions. And he thinks it better, to call those verbs intransitive, which are followed by that and a dependent clause, than to supply the very frequent ellipses which the other explanation supposes. To explain it as a conjunction, connecting an active-transitive verb and its object, as several respectable grammarians do, appears to involve some inconsistency. If that is a conjunction, it connects what precedes and what follows; but a transitive verb should exercise a direct government, without the intervention of a conjunction. On the other hand, the word that has not, in any such sentence, the inherent nature of a pronoun. The transposition above, makes it only a pronominal adjective; as, "Messias cometh, I know that fact." And in many instances such a solution is impracticable; as, "The people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them."-Luke, iv, 42. Here, to prove that to be a pronoun, the disciples of Tooke and Webster must resort to more than one imaginary ellipsis, and to such inversion as will scarcely leave the sense in sight.

OBS. 7.-In some instances the action of a transitive verb gives to its direct object an additional name, which is also in the objective case, the two words being in apposition; as, "Thy saints proclaim thee king."— Cowper. "And God called the firmament Heaven."—Bible. "Ordering them to make themselves masters of a certain steep eminence."—Rollin, ii, 67. And, in such a construction, the direct object is sometimes placed before the verb; though the name which results from the action, cannot be so placed: as, "And Simon he surnamed Peter."—Mark, iii, 15. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God.”—Rev., iii, 12. grammarians seem not to have considered this phraseology as coming within the rule of apposi tion. Thus Webster: "We have some verbs which govern two words in the objective case; as, 'Did I request thee, maker, from my clay

To mold me man?'-Milton, 10, 744.

Some

in the council was offered [to] him.'"-Ib., p. 155, § 215. By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition to, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to passive government, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also. For the ellipsis of to, before "him," is just as evident in the active expression, "I thrice presented him a kingly crown,' as in the passive, "A kingly crown was thrice presented him." It is absurd to deny it in either. Having offset himself, Wells as ingeniously balances his authorities, pro and con; but, the elliptical examples being allowable, he should not have said that I and others "condemn this usage altogether."

"REM. 6. The passive voice of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb; as, 'He was listened to.'-Nor is this to be scoffed at.—This is a tendency to be guarded against. A bitter persecution was carried on.'-Hallam."-Ib., p. 155, § 215. The words here called "prepositions," are adverbs. Prepositions they cannot be; because they have no subsequent term. Nor is it either necessary or proper, to call them parts of the verb: "was carried on," is no more a "compound verb," than "was carried off," or "was carried forward," and the like.

"REM. 7.-Idiomatic expressions sometimes occur in which a noun in the objective is preceded by a passive verb, and followed by a preposition used adverbially. EXAMPLES: Vocal and instrumental music were made use of-Addison. The third, fourth, and fifth, were taken possession of at half past eight.'-Southey. "The Pinta was soon lost sight of in the darkness of the night.'-Irving."-Ib., p. 155, § 215. As it is by the mauner of their use, that we distinguish prepositions and adverbs, it seems no more proper to speak of "a preposition used adverbially," than of "an adverb used prepositionally." But even if the former phrase is right and the thing conceivable, here is no instance of it; foro" here modifies no verb, adjective, or adverb. The construction is an unparsable synchysis, a vile snarl, which no grammarian should hesitate to condemn. These examples may each be corrected in several ways: 1. Say-" were used;"-" were taken into possession;""was soon lost from sight." 2. Say-" They made use of music, both vocal and instrumental."-" Of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, they took possession at half past eight."-" Of the Pinta they soon lost sight," &c. 3. Say "Use was also made of both vocal and instrumental music."-"Possession of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, was taken at half past eight."-"The Pinta soon disappeared in the darkness of the night." Here, again, Wells puzzles his pupil, with a note which half justifies and half condemns the awkward usage in question. See School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 147; 3d Ed., 156; late Ed., § 215.

"REM. 8.-There are some verbs which may be used either transitively or intransitively; as, He will return in a week,' 'He will return the book.'"-Ib., p. 147; 156: &c. According to Dr. Johnson, this is true of "most verbs," and Lindley Murray asserts it of “many." There are, I think, but few which may not, in some phraseology or other, be used both ways. Hence the rule, "Transitive verbs govern the objective case," or, as Wells now has it, "Transitive verbs, in the active voice, govern the objective case," (§ 215,) rests only upon a distinction which itself creates, between transitives and intransitives; and therefore it amounts to little.

'God seems to have made him what he was.'-Life of Cowper."*-Philisophical Gram., p. 170. Improved Gram., p. 120. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 154; "Abridged Ed.," p. 119; and Fowler's E. Gram., § 450. So Murray: "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case; as, 'The Author of my being formed me man.'' They desired me to call them brethren.' He seems to have made him what he was.'"-Octavo Gram., p. 183. Yet this latter writer says, that in the sentence, "They appointed me executor," and others like it, "the verb to be is understood."-Ib., p. 182. These then, according to his own showing, are instances of apposition; but I pronounce them such, without either confounding same cases with apposition, or making the latter a species of ellipsis. See Obs. 1st and 2d, under Rule 3d.

66

OBS. 8. In general, if not always, when a verb is followed by two objectives which are neither in apposition nor connected by a conjunction, one of them is governed by a preposition understood; as, "I paid [to] him the money."-"They offered [to] me a seat."-"He asked [of] them the question "-"I yielded, and unlock'd [to] her all my heart."-Milton. In expressing such sentences passively, the object of the preposition is sometimes erroneously assumed for the nominative; as, "He was paid the money," in stead of, “The money was paid [to] him.”—“ I was offered a seat," in stead of, "A seat was offered [to] me." This kind of error is censured by Murray more than once, and yet he himself has, in very many instances, fallen into it. His first criticism on it, is in the following words: "We sometimes meet with such expressions as these: 'They were asked a question;'They were offered a pardon;' 'He hath been left a great estate by his father.' In these phrases, verbs passive are made to govern the objective case. This license is not to be approved. The expressions should be: 'A question was put to them;' 'A pardon was offered to them;' 'His father left him a great estate.""-L. Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 183. See Obs. 12, below.

as,

OBS. 9.-In the Latin syntax, verbs of asking and teaching are said to govern two accusatives; "Posce Deum veniam, Beg pardon of God.”—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 207. "Docuit me grammaticam, He taught me grammar."-Grant, Adam, and others. And again: "When a verb in the active voice governs two cases, in the passive it retains the latter case; as, "Doceor grammaticam, I am taught grammar."—Adam's Gram., p. 177. These writers however suggest, that in reality the latter accusative is governed, not by the verb, but by a preposition understood. "Poscere deos veniam' is to ask the gods for pardon.'"-Barnes's Philological Gram., p. 116. In general the English idiom does not coincide with what occurs in Latin under these rules. We commonly insert a preposition to govern one or the other of the terms. But we sometimes leave to the verb the objective of the person, and sometimes that of the thing; and after the two verbs ask and teach, we sometimes seem to leave both: as, "When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down, and ask of the forgiveness."-Shakspeare. "In long journeys, ask your master leave to give ale to the horses." -Swift. "And he asked them of their welfare."-Gen., xliii, 27. "They asked of him the parable." -Mark, iv, 10. ("Interrogârunt eum de parabolâ.”—Beza.) "And asking them questions.”—Luke, ii, 46. "But teach them thy sons."-Deut., iv. 9. "Teach them diligently unto thy children."—Ib., vi, 7. Ye shall teach them your children."-Ib., xi, 19. "Shall any teach God knowledge?"—Job, xxi, 22. "I will teach you the fear of the Lord."—Psal., xxxiv, 11. "He will teach us of his ways." -Isaiah, ii, 3; Micah, iv, 2. "Let him that is taught in the word, communicate."-Gal., vi, 6. OBS. 10. After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or pronoun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be parsed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction. Consequently I do not admit, that any passive verb can properly govern an objectivo noun or pronoun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, "Give him bread to eat."-" Bread shall be given him."-Bible. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a "preposition understood;" and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, "Give [to] truth and virtue the same arms which you give [to] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail."—Blair's Rhet., p. 235. The questionable expression, "Ask me blessing," if interpreted analogically, must mean, "Ask for me a blessing," which is more correct and explicit; or, if me be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, "Ask of me a blessing," or, " Ask my blessing." So, "Ask your master leave," ought rather to be, "Ask of your master leave," "Ask your master for leave," or, "Ask your master's leave." The example from Mark ought to be, "They asked him about the parable." Again, the elliptical sentence, "Teach them thy sons," is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, "Teach them to thy sons." To teach is to tell things to persons, or to instruct persons in things; to ask is to request or demand things of or from persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons about or for things. These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more analogical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects. To these examples, Webster adds two others, of a different sort, with a comment, thus: "Ask him his opinion; You have asked me the news.' Will it be said that the latter phrases are elliptical, for 'ask of him his opinion? I apprehend this to be a mistake. According to the true idea of the government of a transitive verb, him must be the object in the phrase under consideration, as much as in this,Ask him for a guinea; or in this, ask him to go."-Ibid. ut supra; Frazee's Gram., p. 152; Fowler's, p. 480. If, for the reason here stated, it is a "mistake" to supply of in the foregoing instances, it does not follow that they are not elliptical. On the contrary, if they are analogous to, "Ask him for a guinea;" or, "Ask him to go," it is manifest that the construction must be this: "Ask him [for] his opinion;" or, "Ask him [to tell] his opinion." So that the question resolves itself into this: What is the best way of supplying the ellipsis, when two objectives thus occur after aski-G. BROWN.

OBS. 11.-Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine cur idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you to this or of this,' Persuadeo hoc tibi. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, Hoc tibi persuadetur, 'You are persuaded of this;' not, Tu persuaderis. 'Ile trusted me with this affair,' or 'He believed me in this,' Hoc mihi credidit.-Passively, Hoc mihi creditum est. 'I told you this,' Hoc tibi dixi. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' Hoc tibi dictum est; not, Tu dictus es." [No, surely: for, 'Tu dictus es,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'-and, if followed by any case, it must be the nominative.] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, Hoc tibi dictum est, means not only 'This was told to you,' but 'You WERE TOLD THIS.' Liber mihi a patre promissus est, means both 'A book was promised (to) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' Is primùm rogatus est sententiam, He was first asked for his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked of him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice." See Grant's Latin Gram., p. 210.

OBS. 12.-Murray's second censure upon passivo government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated. The bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the house of lords.' 'Thrasea was forbidden the presence of the emperor.' 'He was shown that very story in one of his own books.** These sentences should have been: The bishops and abbots were allowed to have (or to take) their seats in the house of lords;' cr, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed to the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden to approach the presence of the emperor;' or, The presence of the emperor was forbidden to Thrasea:''That very story was shown to him in one of his own books.""-Octavo Gram., p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that-Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice.”—Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised me a reward. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain."-J. M. Putnam's Gram., pp. 110 and 112.

OBS. 13.-The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended.. Very many verbs-probably a vast majority-govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; as, to lay hold, to make use, to take In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He paid my board; I told you so." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, to name, to mention. What is there that cannot be named or mentioned? Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, to transgress a law, or rule. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or something equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, "He lived a virtuous life."—" Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed.”—Gen., xxxvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.”—Isaiah, v, 6.

care.

OBS. 14.-Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."-See Guy's Gram., p. 21; Murray's, 180; Ingersoll's, 183; Fisk's, 123; Smith's, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in any sense, or under any construction, that will not, in every sense, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it."- Wright's Gram., p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes,

These examples Murray borrowed from Webster, who published them, with references, under his 34th Rule. With too little faith in the corrective power of grammar, the Doctor remarks upon the constructions as follows: "This idiom is outrageously anomalous, but perhaps incorrigible."— Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 180; Imp. G., 128.

"An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective."-Gram., p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as conceive, think, believe, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, “I conceived it (of it) in that light."-Guy's Gram., p. 21. "Did you conceive (of) him to be me?"—Ib., p. With this idea, few will probably concur.

28.

OBS. 15.-We sometimes find the pronoun me needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, "It ascends me into the brain; dries me there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours."-Shakspeare's Falstaff. "Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster me all to their captain, the heart."-Id. This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person: Fare

you well, Falstaff."-Shak. Here you was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb jare. "Fare thee well."-W. Scott. "Farewell to thee." -Id. These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, "Fare thou well." Again: "Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour."-2 Sam., ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy thee for thou. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs. It ought to be thus: "Turn thou aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay hold on one of the young men, and take to thyself his armour." So of the third person: "The king soon found reason to repent him of his provoking such dangerous enemies."-HUME: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 180. Here both of the pronouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.

"Good Margaret, run thee into the parlour;

There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice."-SHAK.: Much Ado.

NOTES TO RULE V.

NOTE I.-Those verbs or participles which require a regimen, or which signify action that must terminate transitively, should not be used without an object; as, "She affects [kindness,] in order to ingratiate [herself] with you."-"I must caution [you] at the same time, against a servile imitation of any author whatever."-Blair's Rhet., p. 192.

NOTE II.-Those verbs and participles which do not admit an object, or which express action that terminates in themselves, or with the doer, should not be used transitively; as, "The planters grow cotton." Say raise, produce, or cultivate. "Dare you speak lightly of the law, or move that, in a criminal trial, judges should advance one step beyond what it permits them to go?"-Blair's Rhet., p. 278. Say," beyond the point to which it permits them to go."

NOTE III. No transitive verb or participle should assume a government to which its own meaning is not adapted; as, "Thou is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun-personal, it personates man.'"-Kirkham's Gram., p. 131. Say, "It represents man." "Where a string of such sentences succeed each other."-Blair's Rhet., p. 168. Say, "Where many such sentences come in succession."

NOTE IV. The passive verb should always take for its subject or nominative the direct object of the active-transitive verb from which it is derived; as, (Active,) "They denied me this privilege." (Passive,) "This privilege was denied me," not, "I was denied this privilege:" for me may be governed by to understood, but privilege cannot, nor can any other regimen be found for it.

NOTE V.-Passive verbs should never be made to govern the objective case, because the receiving of an action supposes it to terminate on the subject or nominative.* Errors: "Sometimes it is made use of to give a small degree of emphasis." -L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 197. Say, "Sometimes it is used," &c. "His female characters have been found fault with as insipid."-Hazlitt's Lect., p. 111. Say,"have been censured," or,--" have been blamed, decried, dispraised, or condemned." NOTE VI.-The perfect participle, as such, should never be made to govern any objective term; because, without an active auxiliary, its signification is almost always

This seems to be a reasonable principle of syntax, and yet I find it contradicted, or a principle opposite to it set up, by some modern teachers of note, who venture to justify ali those abnormal phrases which I here condemn as errors. Thus Fowler: "Note 5. When a Verb with its Accusative case, is equivalent to a single verb, it may take this accusative after it in the passive voice; as, This has been put an end to.'"-Fowler's English Language, 8vo, § 552. Now what is this, but an effort to teach bad English by rule-and by such a rule, too, as is vastly more general than even the great class of terms which it was designed to include? And yet this rule, broad as it is, does not apply at all to the example given! For "put an end," without the important word "to," is not equivalent to stop or terminate. Nor is the example right. One ought rather to say, "This has been ended;" or, "This has been stopped." See the marginal Note to Obs. 5th, above.