The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

OBS. 1.—Grammarians differ considerably in their tables of the English prepositions. Nor are they all of one opinion, concerning either the characteristics of this part of speech, or the particular instances in which the acknowledged properties of a preposition are to be found. Some teach that, "Every preposition requires an objective case after it."—Lennie, p. 50; Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram., p. 69. In opposition to this, I suppose that the preposition to may take an infinitive verb after it; that about also may be a preposition, in the phrase, "about to write;" that about, above, after, against, by, for, from, in, of, and some other prepositions, may govern participles, as such; (i. e. without making them nouns, or cases;) and, lastly, that after a preposition an adverb is sometimes construed substantively, and yet is indeclinable; as, for once, from afar, from above, at unawares.

OBS. 2.—The writers just quoted, proceed to say: "When a preposition does not govern an objective case, it becomes an adverb; as, 'He rides about.' But in such phrases as, cast up, hold out, fall on, the words up, out, and on, must be considered as a part of the verb, rather than as prepositions or adverbs."—Lennie's Prin. of E. Gram., p. 50; Bullions's, p. 59; his Analyt. and P. Gram., p. 109. Both these sentences are erroneous: the one, more particularly so, in expression; the other, in doctrine. As the preposition is chiefly distinguished by its regimen, it is absurd to speak of it as governing nothing; yet it does not always govern the objective case, for participles and infinitives have no cases. About, up, out, and on, as here cited, are all of them adverbs; and so are all other particles that thus qualify verbs, without governing any thing. L. Murray grossly errs when ha assumes that, "The distinct component parts of such phrases as, to cast up, to fall on, to bear oat, to give over, &c., are no guide to the sense of the whole." Surely, "to cast up" is to cast somehow, though the meaning of the phrase may be "to compute." By this author, and some others, all such adverbs are absurdly called prepositions, and are also as absurdly declared to be parts of the preceding verbs! See Murray's Gram., p. 117; W. Allen's, 179; Kirkham's, 95; R. G. Smith's, 93; Fisk's, 86; Butler's, 63; Wells's, 146.

OBS. 3—In comparing the different English grammars now in use, we often find the primary distinction of the parts of speech, and every thing that depends upon it, greatly perplexed by the fancied ellipses, and forced constructions, to which their authors resort. Thus Kirkham: "Prepositions are sometimes erroneously called adverbs, when their nouns are understood. 'He rides about;' that is, about the town, country, or something else. 'She was near [the act or misfortune of] falling;' 'But do not after [that time or event] lay the blame on me.' 'He came down [the ascent] from the hill;' 'They lifted him up [the ascent] out of the pit.' 'The angels above;'—above us—'Above these lower heavens, to us invisible, or dimly seen.'"—Gram., p. 89. The errors of this passage are almost as numerous as the words; and those to which the doctrine leads are absolutely innumerable. That up and down, with verbs of motion, imply ascent and descent, as wisely and foolishly imply wisdom and folly, is not to be denied; but the grammatical bathos of coming "down [the ascent] from the hill" of science, should startle those whose faces are directed upward! Downward ascent is a movement worthy only of Kirkham, and his Irish rival, Joseph W. Wright. The brackets here used are Kirkham's, not mine.

OBS. 4.—"Some of the prepositions," says L. Murray, "have the appearance and effect of conjunctions: as, 'After their prisons were thrown open,' &c. 'Before I die;' 'They made haste to be prepared against their friends arrived:' but if the noun time, which is understood, be added, they will lose their conjunctive form: as, 'After [the time when] their prisons,' &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 119. Here, after, before, and against, are neither conjunctions nor prepositions, but conjunctive adverbs of time, referring to the verbs which follow them, and also, when the sentences are completed, to others antecedent. The awkward addition of "the time when," is a sheer perversion. If after, before, and the like, can ever be adverbs, they are so here, and not conjunctions, or prepositions.

OBS. 5.—But the great Compiler proceeds: "The prepositions, after, before, above, beneath, and several others, sometimes appear to be adverbs, and may be so considered: as, 'They had their reward soon after;' 'He died not long before;' 'He dwells above;' but if the nouns time and place be added, they will lose their adverbial form: as, 'He died not long before that time,' &c."—Ib. Now, I say, when any of the foregoing words "appear to be adverbs," they are adverbs, and, if adverbs, then not prepositions. But to consider prepositions to be adverbs, as Murray here does, or seems to do; and to suppose "the NOUNS time AND place" to be understood in the several examples here cited, as he also does, or seems to do; are singly such absurdities as no grammarian should fail to detect, and together such a knot of blunders, as ought to be wondered at, even in the Compiler's humblest copyist. In the following text, there is neither preposition nor ellipsis:

   "Above, below, without, within, around,
    Confus'd, unnumber'd multitudes are found."—Pope, on Fame.

OBS. 6.—It comports with the name and design of this work, which is a broad synopsis of grammatical criticism, to notice here one other absurdity; namely, the doctrine of "sentential nouns." There is something of this in several late grammars: as, "The prepositions, after, before, ere, since, till, and until, frequently govern sentential nouns; and after, before, since, notwithstanding, and some others, frequently govern a noun or pronoun understood. A preposition governing a sentential noun, is, by Murray and others, considered a conjunction; and a preposition governing a noun understood, an adverb."—J. L. PARKHURST: in Sanborn's Gram., p. 123. "Example: 'He will, before he dies, sway the sceptre.' He dies is a sentential noun, third person, singular number; and is governed by before; before he dies, being equivalent in meaning to before his death."—Sanborn, Gram., p. 176. "'After they had waited a long time, they departed.' After waiting."—Ib. This last solution supposes the phrase, "waiting a long time," or at least the participle waiting, to be a noun; for, upon the author's principle of equivalence, "they had waited," will otherwise be a "sentential" participle—a thing however as good and as classical as the other!

OBS. 7.—If a preposition can ever be justly said to take a sentence for its object, it is chiefly in certain ancient expressions, like the following: "For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God."—Rom., vi, 10. "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh."—Gen., vi, 3. "For, after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."—1 Cor., i, 21. Here, in, for, and after, are all followed by the word that; which Tooke, Webster, Frazee, and some others, will have to be "a substitute," or "pronoun," representing the sentence which follows it, and governed by the preposition. But that, in this sense, is usually, and perhaps more properly, reckoned a conjunction. And if we take it so, in, for, and after, (unless the latter be an adverb,) must either be reckoned conjunctions also, or be supposed to govern sentences. The expressions however are little used; because "in that" is nearly equivalent to as; "for that" can be better expressed by because; and "after that," which is equivalent to [Greek: epeide], postquam, may well be rendered by the term, seeing that, or since. "Before that Philip called thee," is a similar example; but "that" is here needless, and "before" may be parsed as a conjunctive adverb of time. I have one example more: "But, besides that he attempted it formerly with no success, it is certain the Venetians keep too watchful an eye," &c.—Addison. This is good English, but the word "besides" if it be not a conjunction, may as well be called an adverb, as a preposition.

OBS. 8.—There are but few words in the list of prepositions, that are not sometimes used as being of some other part of speech. Thus bating, excepting, concerning, touching, respecting, during, pending, and a part of the compound notwithstanding, are literally participles; and some writers, in opposition to general custom, refer them always to their original class. Unlike most other prepositions, they do not refer to place, but rather to action, state, or duration; for, even as prepositions, they are still allied to participles. Yet to suppose them always participles, as would Dr. Webster and some others, is impracticable. Examples: "They speak concerning virtue."—Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram., p. 69. Here concerning cannot be a participle, because its antecedent term is a verb, and the meaning is, "they speak of virtue." "They are bound during life." that is, durante vitâ, life continuing, or, as long as life lasts. So, "Notwithstanding this," i.e., "hoc non obstante," this not hindering. Here the nature of the construction seems to depend on the order of the words. "Since he had succeeded, notwithstanding them, peaceably to the throne."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 31. "This is a correct English idiom, Dr. Lowth's criticism, to the contrary notwithstanding."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 85. In the phrase, "notwithstanding them," the former word is clearly a preposition governing the latter; but Dr. Webster doubtless supposed the word "criticism" to be in the nominative case, put absolute with the participle: and so it would have been, had he written not withstanding as two words, like "non obstante;" but the compound word notwithstanding is not a participle, because there is no verb to notwithstand. But notwithstanding, when placed before a nominative, or before the conjunction that, is a conjunction, and, as such, must be rendered in Latin by tamen, yet, quamvis, although, or nihilominus, nevertheless.

OBS. 9.—For, when it signifies because, is a conjunction: as, "Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth."—Prov., xxvii, 1. For has this meaning, and, according to Dr. Johnson, is a conjunction, when it precedes that; as, "Yet for that the worst men are most ready to remove, I would wish them chosen by discretion of wise men."—Spenser. The phrase, as I have before suggested, is almost obsolete; but Murray, in one place, adopts it from Dr. Beattie: "For that those parts of the verb are not properly called tenses."—Octavo Gram., p. 75. How he would have parsed it, does not appear. But both words are connectives. And, from the analogy of those terms which serve as links to other terms, I should incline to take for that, in that, after that, and besides that, (in which a known conjunction is put last,) as complex conjunctions; and also, to take as for, as to, and because of, (in which a known preposition is put last,) as complex prepositions. But there are other regular and equivalent expressions that ought in general to be preferred to any or all of these.

OBS. 10.—Several words besides those contained in the list above, are (or have been) occasionally employed in English as prepositions: as, A, (chiefly used before participles,) abaft, adown, afore, aloft, aloof, alongside, anear, aneath, anent, aslant, aslope, astride, atween, atwixt, besouth, bywest, cross, dehors, despite, inside, left-hand, maugre, minus, onto, opposite, outside, per, plus, sans, spite, thorough, traverse, versus, via, withal, withinside.

OBS. 11.—Dr. Lowth says, "The particle a before participles, in the phrases a coming, a going, a walking, a shooting, &c. and before nouns, as a-bed, a-board, a-shore, a-foot, &c. seems to be a true and genuine preposition, a little disguised by familiar use and quick pronunciation. Dr. Wallis supposes it to be the preposition at. I rather think it is the preposition on."—Lowth's Gram., p. 65; Churchill's, 268. There is no need of supposing it to be either. It is not from on; for in Saxon it sometimes accompanied on: as in the phrase, "on á weoruld;" that is, "on to ages;" or, as Wickliffe rendered it, "into worldis;" or, as our version has it, "for ever." See Luke, i, 55. This preposition was in use long before either a or an, as an article, appeared in its present form in the language; and, for ought I can discover, it may be as old as either on or at. An, too, is found to have had at times the sense and construction of in or on; and