Download the Full Version of the Ebook with Added Features ebookname.

com

Python 3 Web Development Beginner s Guide Anders

https://ebookname.com/product/python-3-web-development-
beginner-s-guide-anders/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Python Testing Beginner s Guide 1st Edition Daniel

Arbuckle

https://ebookname.com/product/python-testing-beginner-s-guide-1st-
edition-daniel-arbuckle/

ebookname.com

PhoneGap 3 Beginner s Guide 2nd Edition Giorgio Natili

https://ebookname.com/product/phonegap-3-beginner-s-guide-2nd-edition-
giorgio-natili/

ebookname.com

FastAPI Modern Python Web Development 1st Edition Bill

Lubanovic

https://ebookname.com/product/fastapi-modern-python-web-
development-1st-edition-bill-lubanovic/

ebookname.com

Encyclopedia of American Industries Manufacturing

Industries 4th Edition Lynn M. Pearce

https://ebookname.com/product/encyclopedia-of-american-industries-
manufacturing-industries-4th-edition-lynn-m-pearce/

ebookname.com
Essential concepts for healthy living 7th Edition Edition
Alters

https://ebookname.com/product/essential-concepts-for-healthy-
living-7th-edition-edition-alters/

ebookname.com

Comparative Government and Politics 6th Edition

Comparative Government Polit Rod Hague

https://ebookname.com/product/comparative-government-and-politics-6th-
edition-comparative-government-polit-rod-hague/

ebookname.com

Sleight of Mouth Volume II How Words Can Change Worlds 1st

Edition Robert Brian Dilts

https://ebookname.com/product/sleight-of-mouth-volume-ii-how-words-
can-change-worlds-1st-edition-robert-brian-dilts/

ebookname.com

Badd Boy The Badd Brothers Book 8 1st Edition Jasinda

Wilder

https://ebookname.com/product/badd-boy-the-badd-brothers-book-8-1st-
edition-jasinda-wilder/

ebookname.com

Public relations for dummies 2nd ed Edition Eric Yaverbaum

https://ebookname.com/product/public-relations-for-dummies-2nd-ed-
edition-eric-yaverbaum/

ebookname.com
Static Government Liars Media Cheerleaders and the People
Who Fight Back First Edition Goodman

https://ebookname.com/product/static-government-liars-media-
cheerleaders-and-the-people-who-fight-back-first-edition-goodman/

ebookname.com
Python 3 Web Development
Beginner's Guide

Use Python to create, theme, and deploy unique web

applications

Michel Anders

BIRMINGHAM - MUMBAI
Python 3 Web Development
Beginner's Guide

Copyright © 2011 Packt Publishing

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the
publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews.

Every effort has been made in the preparation of this book to ensure the accuracy of the
information presented. However, the information contained in this book is sold without
warranty, either express or implied. Neither the author, nor Packt Publishing, and its dealers
and distributors will be held liable for any damages caused or alleged to be caused directly or
indirectly by this book.

Packt Publishing has endeavored to provide trademark information about all of the
companies and products mentioned in this book by the appropriate use of capitals. However,
Packt Publishing cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information.

First published: May 2011

Production Reference: 1060511

Published by Packt Publishing Ltd.

32 Lincoln Road
Olton
Birmingham, B27 6PA, UK.

ISBN 978-1-849513-74-6

www.packtpub.com

Cover Image by Rakesh Shejwal ([email protected])

 Credits

Author Project Coordinators

Michel Anders Poorvi Nair
Michelle Quadros
Reviewers
Michael Driscoll Proofreader
Róman Joost Mario Cecere
Tomi Juhola
Indexer
Andrew Nicholson
Tejal Daruwale
Herjend Teny
Graphics
Acquisition Editor Nilesh Mohite
Sarah Cullington
Production Coordinator
Development Editor Kruthika Bangera
Neha Mallik
Cover Work
Technical Editors Kruthika Bangera
Sakina Kaydawala
Gauri Iyer

Copy Editor
Leonard D'Silva
 About the Author

Michel Anders, after his chemistry and physics studies where he spent more time on
computer simulations than on real world experiments, the author found his real interests
lay with IT and Internet technology, and worked as an IT manager for several different
companies, including an Internet provider, a hospital, and a software development company.

After his initial exposure to Python as the built-in scripting language of Blender, the popular
3D modeling and rendering suite, the language became his tool of choice for many projects.

He lives happily in a small converted farm, with his partner, three cats, and twelve goats.
This tranquil environment proved to be ideally suited to writing his first book, Blender 2.49
Scripting (Packt Publishing, 978-1-849510-40-0).

He loves to help people with Blender and Python-related questions and may be contacted as
'varkenvarken' at http://www.blenderartists.org/ and maintains a blog on Python-
specific subjects at http://michelanders.blogspot.com/.

For Clementine, always.

 About the Reviewers

Michael Driscoll has been programming Python since the Spring of 2006 and has
dabbled in other languages since the late nineties. He graduated from the University with
a Bachelors of Science degree, majoring in Management Information Systems. Michael
enjoys programming for fun and profit. His hobbies include Biblical apologetics, blogging
about Python at http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/, and learning photography.
Michael currently works for the local government, where he does programming with Python
as much as possible. Michael was also a Technical Reviewer for Python 3: Object Oriented
Programming by Dusty Phillips and Python Graphics Cookbook by Mike Ohlson de Fine (both
by Packt Publishing).

I would like to thank my friends and family for their support and the fun
times they share with me. Most of all, I want to thank Jesus for saving me
from myself.

Róman Joost discovered open source software in 1997. He is the project manager for
user documentation for GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). Róman also helped with
German internationalization of GIMP. He has been contributing to GIMP and Zope open
source projects for eight years.

Róman has a Diplom-Informatiker (FH) from the University of Applied Sciences in Koethen
(Anhalt). He has worked for Zope companies—Gocept GmbH & Co in Germany, Infrae in
The Netherlands, and is currently working for a Zope company in Brisbane, Australia. For
relaxation, he enjoys photography and digital painting with GIMP.
Tomi Juhola is a software development professional from Finland. He has a wide range of
development experience from embedded systems to modern distributed enterprise systems
in various roles such as tester, developer, consultant, and trainer.

Currently, he works in a financial company and shares this time between development lead
duties and helping other projects to adopt Scrum and Agile methodologies. He likes to spend
his free time with new interesting development languages and frameworks.

He has reviewed conference proposals, a Python development book, and has also published
his own Master's theses on Agile embedded development.

Andrew Nicholson is a computer engineer with over fourteen years of professional

experience in a broad range of computing technologies. He is currently a Technical Director
with Infinite Recursion Pty Ltd.—a bespoke software engineering company located in Sydney,
Australia. He is a passionate advocate and a participant in the free, libre, and open source
software (FLOSS) community and has actively participated since 1999 contributing code,
ideas, and energy in this engineering community. He was a Technical Reviewer for the book
Python Testing: Beginner's Guide (2010), Packt Publishing.

Nicholson has a B.Eng (Computer) [Honours 1] from Newcastle University, Australia and a
M.Eng (Wireless) with Merit from Sydney University, Australia.

Nicholson's biography can be read at http://www.infiniterecursion.com.au/

people/.
 www.PacktPub.com

Support files, eBooks, discount offers, and more

You might want to visit www.PacktPub.com for support files and downloads related to your
book.

Did you know that Packt offers eBook versions of every book published, with PDF and ePub
files available? You can upgrade to the eBook version at www.PacktPub.com and as a print
book customer, you are entitled to a discount on the eBook copy. Get in touch with us at
[email protected] for more details.

At www.PacktPub.com, you can also read a collection of free technical articles, sign up for a
range of free newsletters, and receive exclusive discounts and offers on Packt books and eBooks.

http://PacktLib.PacktPub.com

Do you need instant solutions to your IT questions? PacktLib is Packt's online digital book
library. Here, you can access, read and search across Packt's entire library of books.

Why Subscribe?
‹‹ Fully searchable across every book published by Packt
‹‹ Copy and paste, print and bookmark content
‹‹ On demand and accessible via web browser

Free Access for Packt account holders

If you have an account with Packt at www.PacktPub.com, you can use this to access
PacktLib today and view nine entirely free books. Simply use your login credentials for
immediate access.
 Table of Contents
Preface 1
Chapter 1: Choosing Your Tools 7
Identifying the components of a web application 7
Time for action – getting an overview of a web application 8
Choosing suitable tools 10
Time for action – choosing a delivery framework, also known as web server 11
Time for action – choosing a server-side scripting language 12
Time for action – choosing a database engine 14
Time for action – deciding on object relational mappers 15
Time for action – choosing a presentation framework 17
Designing for maintainability and usability 18
Testing 18
Time for action – choosing a test framework 19
Version management 19
Usability 20
Good looking – adhering to common GUI paradigms 20
Themable 21
Cross-browser compatible 21
Cross-platform compatible 22
Maintainability 22
Standards compliant 22
Security 23
Reliable 23
Robust 23
Access control and authentication 24
Confidentiality 24
Integrity 25
A final word on security 25
Help, I am confused! 25
Time for action – maintaining overview 26
Summary 28
Table of Contents

Chapter 2: Creating a Simple Spreadsheet 29

Python 3 30
Time for action – installing Python 3 CherryPy 30
Time for action – installing CherryPy 31
Installing jQuery and jQuery UI 31
Serving an application 32
Time for action – serving a dummy application 33
Time for action – serving HTML as dynamic content 34
Who serves what: an overview 36
HTML: separating form and content 37
Time for action – a unit convertor 38
HTML: form-based interaction 39
JavaScript: using jQuery UI widgets 40
Time for action – conversion using unitconverter.js 40
jQuery selectors 42
CSS: applying a jQuery UI theme to other elements 43
Time for action – converting a unit convertor into a plugin 45
JavaScript: creating a jQuery UI plugin 46
Designing a spreadsheet application 51
Time for action – serving a spreadsheet application 51
HTML: keeping it simple 52
JavaScript: creating a spreadsheet plugin 52
The missing parts 58
Summary 58
Chapter 3: Tasklist I: Persistence 59
Designing a tasklist application 59
Time for action – creating a logon screen 62
Serving a logon screen 69
Setting up a session 70
Expiring a session 71
Designing a task list 72
Time for action – running tasklist.py 72
Python: the task module 75
Time for action – implementing the task module 76
Adding new tasks 80
Deleting a task 81
JavaScript: tasklist.js 83
Time for action – styling the buttons 83
JavaScript: tooltip.js 85
Time for action – implementing inline labels 86

[ ii ]
 Table of Contents

CSS: tasklist.css 87
Summary 90
Chapter 4: Tasklist II: Databases and AJAX 91
The advantages of a database compared to a filesystem 92
Choosing a database engine 92
Database-driven authentication 93
Time for action – authentication using a database 94
Tasklist II – storing tasks in a database 99
Improving interactivity with AJAX 99
Time for action – getting the time with AJAX 100
Redesigning the Tasklist application 102
Database design 103
Time for action – creating the task database 103
Time for action – retrieving information with select statements 105
TaskDB – interfacing with the database 106
Time for action – connecting to the database 106
Time for action – storing and retrieving information 107
Time for action – updating and deleting information 109
Testing 111
Time for action – testing factorial.py 112
Now what have we gained? 113
Time for action – writing unit tests for tasklistdb.py 114
Designing for AJAX 116
Click handlers 120
The application 121
Time for action – putting it all together 123
Have a go hero – refreshing the itemlist on a regular basis 125
Summary 126
Chapter 5: Entities and Relations 127
Designing a book database 127
The Entity class 128
Time for action – using the Entity class 129
Time for action – creating instances 132
The Relation class 138
Time for action – using the Relation class 138
Relation instances 141
Time for action – defining the Books database 144
The delivery layer 150
Time for action – designing the delivery layer 151
Time for action – adding a new book 162

[ iii ]
Table of Contents

Auto completion 165

Time for action – using input fields with auto completion 166
The presentation layer 168
Time for action – using an enhanced presentation layer 168
Summary 170
Chapter 6: Building a Wiki 171
The data layer 172
Time for action – designing the wiki data model 172
The delivery layer 175
Time for action – implementing the opening screen 176
The structural components 177
The application methods 179
Time for action – implementing a wiki topic screen 180
Time for action – editing wiki topics 182
Additional functionality 185
Time for action – selecting an image 185
Time for action – implementing a tag cloud 190
Time for action – searching for words 192
The importance of input validation 195
Time for action – scrubbing your content 196
Time for action – rendering content 200
Summary 201
Chapter 7: Refactoring Code for Reuse 203
Time for action – taking a critical look 203
Refactoring 205
Time for action – defining new entities: how it should look 205
Metaclasses 206
Time for action – using metaclasses 207
MetaEntity and AbstractEntity classes 208
Time for action – implementing the MetaEntity and AbstractEntity classes 209
Relations 217
Time for action – defining new relations: how it should look 217
Implementing the MetaRelation and AbstractRelation classes 219
Adding new methods to existing classes 222
Browsing lists of entities 224
Time for action – using a table-based Entity browser 224
Time for action – examining the HTML markup 229
Caching 232
The books application revisited 236
Time for action – creating a books application, take two 236
Summary 242
[ iv ]
 Table of Contents

Chapter 8: Managing Customer Relations 243

A critical review 243
Designing a Customer Relationship Management application 244
Time for action – implementing a basic CRM 244
Adding and editing values 248
Time for action – adding an instance 249
Time for action – editing an instance 251
Adding relations 257
Picklists 259
Time for action – implementing picklists 259
Summary 262
Chapter 9: Creating Full-Fledged Webapps: Implementing Instances 263
Even more relations 263
Time for action – showing one-to-many relationships 264
Time for action – adapting MetaRelation 266
Time for action – enhancing Display 270
Time for action – enhancing Browse 271
Access control 274
Time for action – implementing access control 275
Role-based access control 278
Time for action – implementing role-based access control 279
Summary 283
Chapter 10: Customizing the CRM Application 285
Time for action – sorting 285
Time for action – filtering 290
Customization 292
Time for action – customizing entity displays 292
Time for action – customizing entity lists 298
Time for action – adding a delete button 301
Summary 302
Appendix A: References to Resources 303
Good old offline reference books 303
Additional websites, wikis, and blogs 304
Appendix B: Pop Quiz Answers 307
Chapter 2, Creating a Simple Spreadsheet 307
Chapter 3, Tasklist I: Persistence 308
Chapter 4, Tasklist II: Databases and AJAX 309
Chapter 5, Entities and Relations 310
Chapter 6, Building a Wiki 310
Index 311
[v]
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
needs not to be informed, that the relative may agree with either. If after having
taught the learner, that a Latin adjective must agree with its substantive, we were
to add, as a distinct rule, that it may agree with either of the two substantives,
according to the sense, I apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain
repetition, or with extreme inattention to correctness and precision. For what
would our rule imply? Clearly nothing more, than that the adjective is capable of
agreeing with the substantive to which it belongs; and of this capacity no scholar,
who had learned to decline an adjective, could possibly be ignorant; or it might
convey some idea, that the concord is optional. Now, is it not certain, that the
adjective must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that whose meaning it is
intended to modify, and no other? The relative, in like manner, must agree with
that antecedent, and that only, whose representative it is in the relative clause.
There is nothing arbitrary in either the one case, or the other.
Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former part of the altered rule
leaves the concord as it first stood, discretionary, the latter confines the
agreement of the relative to its proper antecedent. But why this apparent
contrariety? Why is that represented as arbitrary, which is determined by the
sense? This, however, is not the only objection; for it may be affirmed, without
hesitation, that the rule, thus considered, is completely superfluous. For the
learner has been already told, that the relative agrees with the antecedent in
gender, number, and person. And can the antecedent be any other, than that
which the sense indicates? And what does this rule teach? Precisely the same
thing. The rule, therefore, is either calculated to mislead by representing as
arbitrary what is fixed and determinate, or it is purely a rule of supererogation. As
it stood originally, it gave some new information; but that information was
erroneous: as it stands now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless.
The scholar may require an admonition, when there are two antecedents of
different persons, to be careful in referring the relative to its proper antecedent;
but to tell him that it may agree with the one, or the other, according to the sense,
is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, which he already knows. In the examples
just now adduced, the termination of the verb, by indicating the person of the
relative, clearly shows the antecedent; but, where the substantives are of the
same person, and the verb cannot therefore by its termination indicate the
antecedent, ambiguity should be precluded by the mode of arrangement. Thus,
“He is the hero who did it,” and “He who did it is the hero.” In the former, he is the
subject, and the hero who did it the predicate; and in the latter, he who did it is
the subject, and the hero the predicate.
Note 4.—The relative, instead of referring to any particular word as its
antecedent, sometimes refers to a whole clause, thus, “the bill was rejected by the
lords, which excited no small degree of jealousy and discontent,” that is, “which
thing,” namely, the rejection of the bill.
 Note 5.—The antecedent pronoun of the third person is often suppressed, when
no particular emphasis is implied; as, “Who steals my purse, steals trash,” i.e. “he,”
or “the man, who.” “Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive,”
Bible; i.e. “Those whom he would.” “Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of
sin.” In this example the antecedent he, and nominative to the principal verb, is
understood.
Priestley has remarked that the pronouns whoever and whosoever have
sometimes a double construction. He gives the two following examples. “Elizabeth
publicly threatened that she would have the head of whoever had advised it.”—
Hume. “He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him to a sight
of him.”—Hume. Though the learned author seems to admit both these modes of
construction, we apprehend that only one of them is grammatical. It has been just
now observed that the antecedent is often understood to the relative who, and to
the compounds whoever and whosoever. If the antecedent be supplied, it will be
found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley supposes, but definite and
fixed. The first sentence is correct. “She would have the head of him, or them,
whoever had advised,” the relative being the nominative to the verb. “He offered a
great recompense to him, or them, whosoever should help him.” Whomsoever is a
solecism: though close to the preposition to, it is not under its government. (See
the following rules.)
Rule X.—If no nominative intervene between the relative and the
verb, the relative shall be the nominative to the verb, as, “Solomon,
who was the son of David, built the temple of Jerusalem.” Here who
is the nominative to the verb was.
Rule XI.—But, if a nominative intervene between the relative and
the verb, the relative shall be under the government of the
preposition going before, or the noun or verb following, as, “God,
whom we worship, is the Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom
all things were made.” In the first relative clause, where we is the
intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, and
governed by the verb following: in the second clause, where the
intervening nominative is likewise we, the relative is in the genitive
case, and governed by the noun following, thus, “by whose gift,” or
“by the gift of whom;” and in the third clause, where things is the
intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, and
governed by the preposition.
Note 1.—The case of the relative may always be ascertained by repeating the
antecedent, and arranging the clause in the natural order, thus, “the city, which is
called Rome, was founded by Romulus,” i.e. “the city, which city is called Rome.”
The antecedent repeated is the nominative to the verb is, which therefore agrees
with it in case. “God, who sees all things, will punish the wicked,” i.e. “God, which
God sees all things;” the relative, therefore, is the nominative to the verb sees,
that is, it is in the same case in which the antecedent would be put, if again
expressed. “Solomon, whom David loved, was the wisest of princes.” Here, if we
arrange the relative clause in the natural order, beginning with the nominative and
the verb, it will run thus, “David loved whom,” an expression analogous to “David
loved him,” or “David loved which Solomon.” Many solecisms in the construction of
the relative would be easily avoided, by a little attention to the natural
arrangement. Thus, instead of committing the error involved in the following
examples, “The philosopher, who he saw to be a man of profound knowledge,”
“’Twas my brother, who you met with,” “I was a stranger to the person, who I
spoke to,” we should be led by the natural order to the correct phraseology; “he
saw whom,” “you met with whom,” “I spoke to whom.” It is to be observed,
however, that, though the personal pronouns, when under the government of a
verb, may either precede or follow it, the relative in the same state of government
must invariably go before it.
Note 2.—The relatives who and which are often understood, especially in
colloquial language: “The friend I visited yesterday is dead to-day,” i.e. “the friend
whom I visited yesterday is dead to-day.”
Note 3.—After a comparative, both relative and antecedent are often
understood. “The damage was far greater than he knew.” Here there is a
comparison of two objects, the damage suffered, and the damage known; but
only one is expressed. The sentence, if the ellipsis were supplied, would run thus,
“The damage was far greater, than what,” or “that, which he knew.”
Note 4.—There are a few cases, which are considered by some distinguished
critics and grammarians, as requiring the use of that in preference to the pronouns
who and which.
1st. After superlatives the pronoun that is generally used, as, “The wisest man,
that ever lived, is liable to error.”
2ndly. After the word same, that is generally used, as, “he is the same man, that
you saw yesterday.” But, if a preposition should precede the relative, one of the
other two pronouns must be employed, the pronoun that not admitting a
preposition prefixed to it, as, “he is the same man, with whom you were
acquainted.” It is remarkable, however, that when the arrangement is somewhat
changed, the word that admits the preposition, as, “he is the same man, that you
were acquainted with.”
3rdly. That is used after who, taken interrogatively, as, “Who, that has the spirit
of a man, would suffer himself to be thus degraded?”
 4thly. When persons and things are referred to, as, “the men and things, that he
hath studied, have not contributed to the improvement of his morals.”
Rule XII.—An active transitive verb governs the accusative or
objective case, as,
“He teaches me.”
“We honour him.”
Note 1.—As examples of transgression against this rule, we may adduce the
following: “Who do I love so much?”—Shakspeare. “Who should I meet the other
day, but my old friend?”—Spectator. “Those, who he thought true to his party.”—
Clarendon.
Note 2. As substantives have no objective case, the subject or object of the
energy or affection is distinguished by its place, which is after the verb, as
“Achilles slew Hector,” where Achilles, the agent, precedes, and Hector, the subject
of the action, follows the verb. Reverse this order, and the meaning is reversed, as
“Hector slew Achilles.” Where the proper arrangement is not observed, ambiguity
or misconstruction is frequently produced. Thus, when Pope says, Odyss. xix.
“And thus the son the fervent sire address’d,”
it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire address the son? A little
attention would have prevented the ambiguity. If the sire addressed the son, the
line should run thus,
“And thus his son the fervent sire address’d.”
If the son addressed the sire,
“And thus the son his fervent sire address’d.”
Note 3.—An active intransitive verb sometimes governs the objective case of a
noun, of the same or a kindred signification, as, “Let us run the race, which is set
before us.” “If any man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death.”—Bible.
The latter verb, however, though thus used, must not be employed in a transitive
sense. It is an error, therefore, to say, “What have I sinned?”—Bible. It should be,
“How?” or “In what?” Some intransitive verbs also, when used in a reflex sense,
are joined to an objective case, as, “Then having shown his wounds, he’d sit him
down.”—Home’s Douglas. This is a poetic licence, which, in a prose writer, would
not be tolerated, unless in colloquial and very familiar language.
Note 4.—The objective case should not, if possible, be separated from its verb.
This rule is violated in the following sentence: “Becket could not better discover,
than by attacking so powerful an interest, his resolution to maintain,” &c.—Hume.
The regimen is here unnecessarily, and very inelegantly, separated from its verb.
 Rule XIII.—Verbs signifying to ask, teach, offer, promise, pay, tell,
allow, deny, and some others of like signification, are sometimes,
especially in colloquial language, followed in the passive voice by an
objective case.
Note 1.—This rule seems to have escaped the attention of all our English
grammarians, except Priestley, who observes, “that in some familiar phrases, the
subject and object of our affirmation seem to be transposed.” This idiom, except in
a very few instances, is not to be found in Latin, though it occurs pretty often in
Greek: it therefore particularly merits the attention of the junior Latin scholar, lest
in his Anglo-Latin translations it should betray him into an egregious solecism. “He
allowed me great liberty,” turned passively, in concurrence with the Latin idiom,
“great liberty was allowed me.” But we say also in English, “I was allowed great
liberty.” “He promised (to) me a ship in five days,” passively, “a ship was promised
me,” and “I was promised her in five days.” “She would not accept the jewels,
though they were offered to her by her mother,” or, “though she was offered them
by her mother.”
Note 2.—After verbs of giving, telling, sending, promising, offering, and others
of like signification, the thing is very generally placed before the person. In the
time of Swift and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. We find authors of
that period saying indiscriminately, “Give it us,” and “Give us it;” “Tell him it,” and
“Tell it him;” “He promised me it,” and “He promised it me.” In Scotland these two
modes of expression still obtain. In England they are now reduced under one
general rule. We say, “Give it me,” “Tell it him,” “He sent it us.”
Rule XIV.—The verb to be has the same case after it as it has
before it, thus denoting that the subjects are identical, or that the
one term is the predicate of the other, as, “It is he,” “You believed it
to be him.” In the former example, it is the nominative to the verb,
the nominative case he therefore follows the verb. In the latter, it is
the regimen of the verb believed, the verb to be is therefore
followed by the objective case.
Note 1.—This rule is violated in such examples as “it is me,” “it was him,” “I
believed it to be he,” “whom do men say that I am?” In the last example, the
natural arrangement is, “men say that I am whom,” where, contrary to the rule,
the nominative I precedes, and the objective case whom follows the verb.
Note 2.—Priestley has asked, “Who would not say, ‘If it be me,’ rather than ‘If it
be I?’” Our ears are certainly more familiar with the former than with the latter
phraseology, and those who consult the ear only, may prefer it: but, where no
advantage is gained by a departure from analogy, every deviation is at once idle
and reprehensible.
Note 3.—The verb to be is called by logicians the copula, as connecting the
subject with the predicate. Thus, when we say, “he is wise,” “they are learned,” he
and they are the subjects; wise and learned the predicates. Now, it particularly
deserves the attention of the classical scholar, that in English almost any verb may
be used as a copula. This circumstance is the more worthy of his notice, as a
conformity to the Latin idiom may lead him to reject expressions, which are
unexceptionable, and to adopt others not strictly correct[125]. Thus we say, “it
tastes good,” “he strikes hard,” “I remember right,” “he feels sick;” “we came late,”
“they rise early,” “he drinks deep.” I am aware that the words late, early, are in
such examples considered as adverbs. It appears to me they are adjectives,—that
the idiom is truly English, and that all these expressions are perfectly analogous.
Rule XV.—When two verbs come together, the attribute signified by
the one verb being the subject or object of the action, energy, or
affection expressed by the other, the former is governed in the
infinitive mood, as, “he taught me to read,” “I knew him to be.”
Note 1.—The infinitive thus frequently supplies the place of an objective case
after the verb, as it often stands for a nominative before it, as, “he loves to study,”
or “he loves study.”
Note 2.—In such examples as, “I read to learn,” where the latter phrase, though
in the same form as to study, in the preceding example, has, notwithstanding, a
different meaning, and cannot be resolved like it into “I read learning,” in such
examples, as Tooke justly observes, the preposition for denoting the object, and
equivalent to pour in French, is understood, as, “I read for to learn.” Our southern
neighbours indeed, in these examples, never omit the casual term; and Trusler has
not improperly observed, that, when the verb does not express the certain and
immediate effect, but something remote and contingent, the words in order to,
which are nearly equivalent to for, may be pertinently introduced as, “in order to
acquire fame, men encounter the greatest dangers.”
Note 3.—The verbs to bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, let, are not
followed by the sign of the infinitive, as, “He bade me go,” “I saw him do it.” It is
to be observed, however, that in the language of Scripture the verb “to make” is
often followed by to, as, “He maketh his sun to rise.” The verb “to dare,” for “to
challenge,” or “to defy,” is also construed with to, “I dare thee but to breathe upon
my love.”—Shakspeare.
Note 4.—Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often followed by an infinitive,
as, “your desire to improve will ultimately contribute to your happiness.” “Good
men are desirous to do good.”
 Note 5.—As the proper tense of the subsequent or secondary verb has, in
certain cases, been a subject of dispute, it may be necessary to observe, that,
when the simple attribute, or merely the primary idea expressed by the
subsequent verb, is intended to be signified, it should then be put in the present
tense: but when the idea of perfection or completion is combined with the primary
idea, the subsequent verb should have that form, which is termed the perfect of
the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule may, more intelligibly to the scholar, though
less correctly, be thus expressed, that when the action or state, denoted by the
subsequent verb, is contemporary with that of the primary verb, then the
secondary verb must be put in the present tense; but when the action or state is
prior to that expressed by the secondary verb, the latter must be put in the
preterite tense. Usage, indeed, and the opinions of grammarians, are divided on
this subject. But when nothing but usage can be pleaded in favour of one
phraseology, and when reason concurs with usage to recommend another, it will
not be questioned that the latter deserves the preference. Thus, we should say, “I
expected to see you,” and not “I expected to have seen you;” because either the
expectation and the seeing must be regarded as contemporary, or the former must
be considered as prior to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the seeing be
considered as contemporary with the expectation? Might not the former have been
anterior to the latter? This is certainly possible; I may see a friend before I expect
him. But though the sight, abstractedly considered, may precede the expectation,
it cannot possibly, as an object of expectation, be prior to it. The idea involves
absurdity, equal and analogous to the assertion, that the paper, on which I write,
existed as an object of my perception, previously to my perceiving it. Agreeably to
the second form of the rule here given, we find that the Latins very generally used
the present of the infinitive, to express an action or state contemporary with the
attribute of the primary verb. Thus, dixit me scribere, “he said that I wrote,” or
“was writing,” that is, at the time of his saying so: dixit me scripsisse, “he said that
I had written.”
I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted by the subsequent
verb is implied, we should use the present of the infinitive. This phraseology
should not only be used in all cases, where contemporary actions or states are to
be signified, but may also be sometimes employed, where the secondary verb
denotes something posterior to what is implied by the first. For though in no
instance, where the simple action or state is to be expressed, should we use the
sign of past or future time, yet for obvious reasons we may, and often do, employ
the present infinitive, or simple name, to denote what is future, when the primary
verb necessarily implies the futurity of its object. Thus, instead of saying, “he
promised that he would pay,” where the constructive sign of futurity is used to
denote the posteriority of the payment, we often say, “he promised to pay,”
employing the present tense, synonymous with the simple name, as, “he promised
payment.” The Latins also, though they almost universally, unless in colloquial
language, preferred the former mode of expression, sometimes adopted the latter,
as, denegavit se dare.—Plaut. Jusjurandum pollicitus est dare.—Id. “He refused to
give,” “he promised to give,” or “he promised giving,” the secondary verb
expressing the act simply, and the time being necessarily implied.
Note 6.—The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an absolute or independent
sense, as, “to speak the truth, we are all liable to error.” “Not to trespass on your
time, I will briefly explain the whole affair,” that is, “that I may speak,” “that I may
not trespass.”

Rule XVI.—The imperative, agreeably to the general rule, agrees

with its nominative, as,
“Love thou;” “listen ye,” or “you.”
Note 1.—The imperative is frequently used, without its subject, that is, the
nominative being suppressed, but the person or persons being perfectly
understood. “And Samuel said to the people, Fear not,” i.e. “Fear ye not.”
Note 2.—It is employed in the same way, in an absolute sense, without its
subject. “Our ideas are movements of the nerves of sense, as of the optic nerve,
in recollecting visible ideas, suppose of a triangular piece of ivory.”—Darwin. I
agree with Webster in thinking, that there is “a peculiar felicity” in such absolute
forms of expression, the verb being thus applicable to any of the three persons,
thus, “I may suppose,” “you may suppose,” “one may suppose.”

Rule XVII.—Participles are construed as the verbs to which they

belong, as,
“Teaching us to deny ungodliness.”
Note 1.—The imperfect participle is frequently used like a substantive, and is, in
such examples, of the same import with the infinitive of the verb; as, “they love
reading,” i.e. “they love to read.” In some examples it becomes a real noun, and
has a plural number, as, the outgoings of the morning.
Note 2.—Lowth contends that, when the imperfect participle of a transitive verb
is not preceded by the definite article, it properly governs the objective case, and
is analogous to the Latin gerund, as, “much advantage will be derived from
observing this rule;” in which example, this rule is the regimen of the participle
observing; and that, when the definite article precedes the participle, it becomes
then a pure noun, and, therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. He therefore
condemns this expression, “by the sending them the light of thy holy Spirit.” Some
of our grammarians consider Lowth, in this instance, as fastidiously critical; but to
me he appears chargeable with error. Let us examine the reasons, which the
author adduces in support of his opinion.
 In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, does usage justify the
opinion of the author? He acknowledges the contrary: he even admits that there is
not a single writer who does not violate this rule. Were it necessary, indeed, after
this concession, it would be easy to evince, that not only our translators of the
Bible, whose authority surely is of great weight, but also other writers of the
highest eminence, employ the phraseology which he condemns.
Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to establish, favour perspicuity?
The very reverse appears to me to be the case; for he admits an identity of sense
in two distinct phraseologies, which are incontestably, in many instances,
susceptible of different meanings. And, though this ambiguity may not be involved
in every example, we have surely good reasons for repudiating a phraseology
which may, in any instance, be liable to misconstruction. We are to prescribe, not
what may be perspicuous in some instances, but what must be intelligible in all.
Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either by inserting the article
before the participle and the preposition after it, or by the omission of both; in
other words, that these phraseologies are equivalent. Thus, according to him, we
may say either, “by sending his Son into the world,” or “by the sending of his Son.”
Here, perhaps, the meaning is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of these forms of
expression be adopted. But let us take another example, as, “he expressed the
pleasure he had, in hearing the philosopher.” Now, according to Lowth, we may
also say, “he expressed the pleasure he had, in the hearing of the philosopher.” Is
there no difference of sentiment here? Are these expressions equivalent? The
contrary must be obvious to the most inattentive reader. According to the former
phraseology, the philosopher was heard—he is represented as passive; agreeably
to the latter, he was active—he heard.
Again. “When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of
his sons and daughters.” Our translators have correctly exhibited the sentiment.
The sons and daughters had given offence; they had provoked the Deity. But, if
Lowth’s opinion be correct, the expression might be “because of provoking his
sons and daughters;” a phrase which evidently conveys a very different idea.
Again. When it is said, “at the hearing of the ear, they will believe,” is this
expression convertible, without violating the sense, into, “at hearing the ear they
will believe?” Many more examples might be produced to prove that these
phraseologies, which Lowth considers of the same import, are by no means
equivalent. It appears, then, that perspicuity is not consulted by adopting this rule.
Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition before it, as correspondent
to the Latin gerund, and therefore governing an objective case; but the participle
preceded by an article, he considers as a substantive, and therefore incapable of
any regimen. Now, as the author reasons from one language to another, we may
pertinently ask, is not the Latin gerund a noun, a verbal substantive, not only
having the form, and the inflexions of a noun, but governed like it, by nouns,
adjectives, verbs, and prepositions, itself likewise governing the case of its verb?
This position, were this the place for it, we could easily prove, notwithstanding the
objections which Scioppius, Vossius, with some other grammarians, have alleged
against it. Nay, whatever theory be adopted respecting the nature of the gerund,
there cannot exist a doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman literature, the verbal
nouns in io governed an accusative, like the verbs whence they were derived. Quid
tibi curatio est hanc rem, is one example from Plautus out of many, which might
be produced[126]. That the supines also were, in truth, substantives admitting a
regimen, is equally clear: Difficile dictu was originally difficile in dictu; and misit
oratum opem, misit ad oratum opem. Nor can the structure of the future infinitive
passive be so satisfactorily resolved, notwithstanding a few repugnant examples,
as on this supposition: Dixit libros lectum iri is resolved into dixit (id) iri ad lectum
libros, where libros is the regimen of the verbal noun lectum.
Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and verbal nouns in io,
though in form and inflexion substantives, governed an accusative case. It matters
not, indeed, to the point in question, what was the practice of the ancients in this
respect; nor should I, therefore, have dwelt so long on this subject, did I not
conceive, that the very authority to which Dr. Lowth seems to appeal, militates
against him; and that the very language, to which in this, as in most other cases,
he strives to assimilate ours, had nouns governing cases, like the verbs from which
they came.
From the preceding observations, I think it must appear, that the rule given by
Dr. Lowth, is neither sanctioned by general usage, nor friendly to perspicuity; while
the violation of it is perfectly reconcilable with the practice of the Roman writers, if
their authority can, in this question, be deemed of any value.
Having attempted to prove the invalidity of Lowth’s argument, and the
impropriety of his rule, as establishing an identity of meaning, where a difference
must exist, I would submit to the candid and judicious critic the following remarks.
The participle in ing has either an active or passive signification; its import must,
therefore, be determined by the judgment of the reader, or by explanatory
adjections. Whatever, then, is calculated to remove all misconstruction, and to
render its import clear and unequivocal, merits attention. Consistently, then, with
some of the examples already adduced, I am inclined to suggest, that, when the
noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing something, the preposition
should be inserted, as, “in the hearing of the philosopher,” that is, the philosopher
hearing; and that, when the noun represents the subject of an action, or what is
suffering, the preposition should be omitted, as, “in hearing the philosopher,” or
the philosopher being heard. An attention to this rule will, I conceive, in most
cases prevent ambiguity.
 If it should be said that I have admitted Lowth’s phraseologies, I answer, it is
true; but with this difference, that he considers them as equivalent, and I as
diametrically opposite. I observe, likewise, that, though I prefer the suppression of
the article when the participle is not followed by of, and its insertion when it is
followed by the preposition, it is not because I perceive any impropriety in the
other phraseology, but because, since the publication of Lowth’s Grammar, it has
been less employed; and because also it less forcibly marks the distinction, which I
have recommended. That it has the sanction of good authority, is unquestionable;
and that it is not inconsistent with analogy, will still further appear from the
following note.
Note 3.—The participle in ing is construed like a noun, governing the genitive
case, and, at the same time, having the regimen of its proper verb, as, “Much
depends on Richard’s observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his
neglecting it.” In this example, the words Richard’s and his are in the genitive
case, governed by the participles observing and neglecting, while these participles,
having here every character of a noun, admit the objective case. This form of
expression has been received as unexceptionable; the following phraseology,
however, has been censured, though, in truth, precisely analogous to the one now
exemplified: “Much depends on the rule’s being observed, and error will be the
consequence of its being neglected.” “Here,” said a certain writer, “is a noun with a
pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the
government of another noun, but without any other noun to govern it; for being
observed and being neglected are not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the
possessive case by the preposition of, before the noun or pronoun.”
I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this objection, in thinking, that
the expression is not only sanctioned by good usage, but is also agreeable to
analogy, and preventive of circumlocution. The objector, indeed, does not seem to
have been aware, that his opinion is at variance with itself; and that the reason,
which he assigns for rejecting this phraseology, would, with equal force, conclude
against another mode of expression, which he himself approves. For he would
have no objection to say, “Much depends on his observing the rule, and error will
be the consequence of his neglecting it.” Now let us try whether this sentence be
not liable to the same objection as the other. In the former, he says, you cannot
possibly supply the place of the possessive case, by the preposition of before the
noun or pronoun. This is true; for it would not be English to say, “Much depends
on the being observed of the rule; and error will be the consequence of the being
neglected of it.” But will his own approved phraseology admit this? Let us see;
“Much depends on the observing of him of the rule, and error will be the
consequence of the neglecting of him of it.” Were the example simpler, the
argument would be equally strong; as, “Much depends on your pupil’s composing,
but more on his reading frequently.” This sentence, the author alluded to, would
have approved. Let us try if it can be resolved by of: “Much depends on the
composing of your pupil, but more on the reading of him frequently.”
The author’s argument, then, if it prove anything, proves too much; it cannot,
therefore, have any weight.
In addition to these observations, I would remark, that the writer’s argument
involves another inconsistency. He admits that the participle in ing may be thus
construed; for he approves the phrases, “his observing the rule,” and “his
neglecting it.” Why then does he reject “his being” and “its being?” for the past or
perfect participles observed and neglected have no share in the government, rule’s
and it’s being under the regimen of the participle in ing. In fact, then, the phrase
seems no more objectionable than “his being a great man did not make him a
happy man;” which our author would admit to be wholly unexceptionable.
Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle similar to that, the
absurdity of which we have been attempting to expose, have discarded a
phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one which seems less
correct. Many writers, instead of saying, “his being smitten with the love of
Orestilla was the cause of his murdering his son,” would say, “he being smitten
with the love of Orestilla was the cause.” This seems to me an idle affectation of
the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less
consonant with the genius of our language. For, ask what was the cause; and,
according to this phraseology, the answer must be he; whereas the meaning is,
that not he, but his being smitten, was the cause of his murder.
“This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of Gloucester with the
murder of Prince Edward.” “This,” says Mr. Baker, very justly, “is, in my opinion, a
very uncouth way of speaking, though much used by ignorant people, and often
affected by those who are not ignorant.” The writer should have said, “for Hall’s
charging.” “His words being applicable to the common mistake of our age induce
me to transcribe them.” Here I agree with the same writer in thinking, that it
would be better to consider words as in the genitive case plural, governed by the
participle, as Hall’s in the preceding example, and join his words’ being applicable,
equivalent to the applicability of his words, with the verb singular; thus, “his
words’ being applicable to the common mistake of our age, induces me to
transcribe them.” A ridiculous partiality in favour of the Latin idiom, which in this
case is not so correct as our own, not exhibiting the sentiment with equal
precision, has given birth to this phraseology, which in many cases conveys not
the intended idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, “What think you of my
horse’s running to-day?” it is implied, that the horse did actually run. If it is said,
“What think you of my horse running to-day?” it is intended to ask, whether it be
proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected,
deserves attention; for it is obvious, that ambiguity may arise from using the latter
only of these phraseologies, to express both meanings.
 Note 4.—This participle is sometimes used absolutely, in the same manner as
the infinitive mood, as, “this conduct, viewing it in the most favourable light,
reflects discredit on his character.” Here the participle is made absolute, and is
equivalent to the infinitive in that state, as, “to view it in the most favourable
light.” Both these modes of expression are resolvable, either by the hypothetical,
or the perfective conjunctions; thus, “if we view it in the most favourable light.”
“To confess the truth, I have no merit in the case;” i.e. “that I may confess.”
Rule XVIII.—A noun or pronoun joined to a participle, its case
being dependent on no word in the sentence, is put in the
nominative.
Note 1.—This rule will be perfectly understood by the classical scholar, when we
say, that the absolute case in English is the nominative. Thus, “We being
exceedingly tossed the next day, they lightened the ship.” The pronoun of the first
person, joined to the participle, being, is neither the nominative to any verb, nor is
it connected with any word, of which it can be the regimen. It is therefore put in
the nominative case.
Note 2.—This rule is violated in such examples as the following, “Solomon made
as wise proverbs as anybody has done, him only excepted, who was a much wiser
man than Solomon.”—Tillotson.
“For only in destroying I find ease
To my relentless thoughts; and, him destroy’d,
Or won to what may work his utter loss,
For whom all this was made, all this will soon
Follow,”—Milton.
This seems to be the only example in which the poet has transgressed this rule;
and in several instances, in which he has observed it, Bentley would erroneously
substitute the objective case.
Rule XIX.—Prepositions are joined with the objective case, or
govern nouns and pronouns in the accusative, as, “he ran to me,”
“he was loved by us.”
Note 1.—This rule is violated in such expressions as these, “Who servest thou
under?” “Who do you speak to?” for the syntactical arrangement is, “thou servest
under who?” “thou speakest to who?” instead of “under whom?” “to whom?”
Note 2.—The preposition is frequently separated from its regimen, as, “Horace is
an author, whom I am much delighted with,” i.e. “with whom I am much
delighted.”
Note 3.—The prepositions to and for are often understood, as, “he gave me a
book,” “he told me the news:” i.e. “he gave to me,” “he told to me.”
 Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the pronouns, me, thee,
&c., may be considered to be in the dative case, as, in truth, they are in Saxon the
datives of their respective pronouns, and in their form include to, as, “woe is to
me.” This phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the same as, “wae is me,” in which
me is a dative case.
The preposition by is also, in a few colloquial expressions, omitted, as, “he went
across the bridge,” “he crossed the bridge,” for “he crossed (the river) by the
bridge.”
Note 4.—A preposition, following a verb, constituting with it what has been
termed a compound active verb, is sometimes suppressed. We say, “he hoped for
a reward,” “you wondered at his courage.” Addison, Steele, and Johnson, with
several other reputable writers, say, “It is to be hoped,” instead of “to be hoped
for;” and Johnson very generally says, “It is not to be wondered,” for “not to be
wondered at.” The latter form of expression seems to have been adopted, in order
to avoid the abrupt and inelegant conclusion of the clause, especially when
followed by the word that.
Note 5.—The prepositions in, on, for, and from, are often understood before
nouns of time and place; thus, “this day,” “next month,” “last year,” are often used
elliptically for “on this day,” “in next month,” “in last year.” We say, also, “He was
banished England,” i.e. “from England.”
Care, however, should be taken that the omission create no ambiguity. If we
say, “He was deaf some years before he died,” referring to a temporary deafness,
and a point of time at which it occurred, the expression is not improper, though
the meaning might be more clearly expressed; but if we intend to signify a
continued deafness, we ought to say, “for” or “during some years.”
Note 6.—The preposition is improperly omitted in the following line of Pope’s:
“And virgins smiled at what they blush’d before.”
It should be, according to the rules of syntax, “smiled at what they blushed at
before,” both verbs requiring at after them, thus, “they smiled at that, at which
they blushed before.”
Note 7.—Prepositions should be placed as near as possible to each of the words,
whose relation they express. The following sentence from Hume is, in this respect,
faulty: “The ignorance of the age in mechanical arts, rendered the progress very
slow of this new invention.” It should be, “the progress of this new invention.” The
following sentence from Johnson, is, for the same reason, chargeable with faulty
arrangement: “The country first dawned, that illuminated the world, and beyond
which the arts cannot be traced of civil society or domestic life.”—Rasselas. It
should be, “the arts of civil society or domestic life cannot be traced.” Priestley has
censured the following clause from Harris, “being in no sense capable of either
intention or remission.” If it be considered, however, that the word either properly
means “the one or the other,” and in truth denotes the subject, being, therefore, in
strict propriety, the regimen of the preposition, the arrangement of Harris, though
now not so common as the other, will not appear exceptionable. Nay, whatever
may be the future decision of usage, that great arbitress of all language, (for at
present she is divided,) Harris’s arrangement seems more conformable to the strict
meaning of the words, as well as to Priestley’s own rule, than that, which the
latter recommends; thus, “capable of either (i.e. of the one or of the other),
intension, or remission.”
Rule XX.—Adverbs have no government.
Note 1.—They are sometimes improperly used for adjectives, as, “After those
wars of which they hoped for a soon and prosperous issue.”—Sidney. “A soon
issue” is not English; an adverb cannot agree with a substantive; it should be “a
speedy and prosperous issue.” Such expressions likewise as the following, though
not destitute of authority, are exceedingly inelegant, and irreconcilable with
analogy: “the then ministry,” for “the ministry of that time;” “the above discourse,”
for “the preceding discourse.”
Note 2.—They are sometimes used like substantives, as, “a little while,” for “in a
little time,” or “for a little time.” “Worth while,” “some how,” “any how,” “any
where,” are examples of the same kind.
Note 3.—The adverbs whence, thence, hence, are equivalent to, “from which
place,” “from that place,” “from this place;” from whence, from thence, from
hence, are therefore chargeable with redundancy.
Note 4.—Never is sometimes erroneously used for ever, as, “they might be
extirpated, were they never so many.” It should be, “ever so many,” i.e. “how
many soever.” “Who will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never
so sweetly.” It should be, “ever so sweetly;” i.e. “however sweetly,” or “how
sweetly soever.”
Note 5.—Ever is likewise sometimes improperly used for never, as, “I seldom or
ever see him now.” It should be, “seldom or never,” the speaker intending to say,
“that rarely, or rather at no time, does he see him now;” not “rarely,” or “at any
time.”
Note 6.—Priestley remarks, that the French always place their adverbs
immediately after their verbs, which order, he observes, by no means suits the
English idiom. “His government gave courage to the English barons to carry
farther their opposition.”—Hume. It would be better, “to carry their opposition
farther.” “Edward obtained a dispensation from his oath, which the barons had
compelled Gaveston to take, that he would abjure for ever the realm;” better “the
realm for ever.”
 Note 7.—The adverb is generally placed between the auxiliary verb and the
participle, as, “this is perfectly understood.” When there are more auxiliaries than
one, the same author observes, that the adverb should be placed after the first.
This rule, however, is by no means universally followed; for many of our best
writers employ a different arrangement, and, I think, with great propriety; as, “this
will be perfectly understood,” where the adverb follows both auxiliaries. The place
of the adverb may, in general, be ascertained, by considering what word it is
intended to qualify: and, in the last example, it should be closely connected with
understood. But more on this subject in the following note.
Note 8.—The adverb, as its name imports, is generally placed close to the word,
which it modifies or affects: its force, therefore, very much depends upon its
position. Inattention to the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently the cause of
much obscurity and misconception. To this inattention we may ascribe the
ambiguity in the following sentence: “He was not honoured with this reward, but
with the approbation of the people.” This sentence may imply, either that he was
honoured with this reward, not without the approbation of the people; or that he
was not honoured with this reward, but was honoured with the approbation of the
people. The latter is the meaning intended. It should therefore be, “he was
honoured, not with this reward, but with the approbation of the people.” By this
arrangement the sentiment is correctly exhibited—the two subjects, reward and
approbation, are perspicuously contrasted, and while the former is negatived, the
latter is affirmed[127].
Note 9.—Lowth observes that “the adverb should be for the most part placed
before adjectives, and after verbs;” thus, “he was excessively modest,” “he fought
bravely.” This is, indeed, the general arrangement; but it admits many exceptions.
In no case are writers so apt to err as in the position of the word only. Its place, in
my opinion, is after the substantive to which it refers, or which it exclusively
implies, and before the attributive. In the following sentence of Steele’s, the
collocation is faulty: “ The bridegroom sits with an aspect which intimates his
thoughts were not only entertained with the joys with which he was surrounded,
but also with a noble gratitude, and divine pleasure.” This collocation of the two
adverbs implies that his thoughts were something more than entertained: whereas
it is the author’s intention to say, that his thoughts were entertained with
something more than joys. The sentence, therefore, should proceed thus: “The
bridegroom sits with an aspect, which intimates, that his thoughts were
entertained not with the joys only, with which he was surrounded, but also with a
noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”[128]
When Addison says (Spec. No. 412), “By greatness I do not only mean the bulk
of any single object, but the largeness of a whole view,” the question naturally
occurs, what does he more than mean? It is evident that, agreeably to this
arrangement, the adverb refers to mean, exclusively of all other attributes or
actions, and being prefaced by a negative, implies “that he does something more
than mean.” In this criticism I concur with Blair, who has expressed his
disapprobation of this arrangement.
Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb after bulk, it would
have still been wrong. For if he had said, “I do not mean the bulk only,” then the
adverb, following a noun substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every other,
and the clause being negative, the question would be, what does he mean more
than the bulk? Is it the colour, the beauty, or what else?
Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not mean one thing, the word
only should have followed the name of that thing, whether its designation was
simple or complex. He should, therefore, have said, “the bulk of any single object
only, but the largeness of a whole view.” According to this arrangement, the word
only refers, as it ought, to “the bulk of any single object” as one idea; and the
question occurs, what does he mean more than the bulk of any single object? to
which the answer follows, “the largeness of a whole view.” It may, however, at the
same time be observed that, consistently with the practice of some of our best
writers, who place the adverb before its subject, there seems no impropriety here
in saying, “I do not mean only,” i.e. “one thing,” “the bulk of a single object, but
the largeness of a whole view.”
“The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him,” says Gibbon, “that by exploits of
the same nature, by the defeat of the Nemean lion, and the slaughter of the wild
boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian Hercules had acquired a place among the gods,
and an immortal memory among men.” “They only forgot to observe that, in the
first ages of society, a successful war against savage animals is one of the most
beneficial labours of heroism.” In the beginning of the latter sentence the adverb
only is misplaced. As it stands, the meaning is that they were the only persons
who forgot: it should be “only they forgot to observe;” i.e. “one thing they forgot,”
namely, “to observe.” To this erroneous collocation in Gibbon, I shall oppose a
similar example from Pope, in which the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to
Hughes, speaking of the compliments which this gentleman had paid to him on his
translation of Homer, he acquaints him, that he should be ashamed to attempt
returning these compliments; one thing, however, he would observe, namely, that
he esteemed Mr. Hughes too much not to be pleased with the compliments which
he had received from him. His words, therefore, are, “I should be ashamed to
offer at saying any of those civil things, in return to your obliging compliments, in
regard to my translation of Homer: only I have too great a value for you not to be
pleased with them;” where the word only introduces the clause, and is equivalent
to “one thing is true,” or “thus much (tantum), I say, I have too great a value,” &c.
Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it precedes the pronoun, does not refer to it;
and that Mr. Pope’s collocation of it is perfectly correct, to express the sentiment,
which he intended. Had he said, “I only,” the adverb would have referred to the
pronoun, and implied that he was the only person who valued. Had he intended to
say, that he merely entertained an esteem for him, but could not manifest it, then
the presence of the auxiliary would have been necessary, and he would have
expressed himself thus, “I do only entertain too great an esteem for you;” that is,
“I do only (one thing) entertain too great an esteem.” Had he said, “I have only
too great a value for you,” it would be properly opposed to, “and not too little.”
Had he said, “I have too great a value only,” then value would be contrasted with
some other sentiment, as when one says, he “has wealth only, but not virtue,” for
example, or any other acquirement. As a violation of this rule, I adduce also the
following expression of a reviewer. “We only discharge our duty to the public;” a
declaration which, strictly interpreted, means “we are the only persons who
discharge.” It should be, “we do only (one thing) discharge our duty;” for the
writer intended to say, that he did nothing but discharge his duty to the
public[129]. In justification of such inaccuracies, it is impertinent to plead, that a
little attention will prevent misconception. It is the business of every author to
guard his reader, as far as the language in which he writes will permit, from the
possibility of misconstruction, and to render that attention to the language
unnecessary. Quintilian’s maxim cannot be too often repeated to those who, by
such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable ambiguity[130].
The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and also by Baker, in his
“Remarks.” “Theism,” says Shaftesbury, “can only be opposed to polytheism or
atheism.” He ought to have said, observes Baker, “Theism can be opposed only to
polytheism or atheism.” Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with the remarker. I am
inclined, however, to differ from both; and think, that the sentence should run
thus: “Theism can be opposed to polytheism only, or atheism;” where the adverb
only refers to the noun immediately preceding, and is understood to the other,
implying, that these two systems of belief are the only creeds to which theism can
be opposed. If this be not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite
rule can be given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be placed either before or
after the substantive, to which it refers, then precision becomes impossible, and
we may say, “he only” or “only he” to express the same sentiment; which
collocations, I have already shown, denote ideas materially different. But, if there
be a definite and precise rule for the position of this word, and if the sense be
different, according to the collocation of the adverb, then I think it will appear, that
it ought to be subjoined to the substantive or pronoun to which it refers; and this
opinion is supported by the authority of Blair himself, in the examples which I have
just now adduced. For why, unless on this principle, does he contend that the
word only should be placed after the bulk of a single object? If the adverb then
be, in this example, rightly placed after the substantive or complex name, to which
it refers, it ought to have the same position assigned to it in every similar instance.
That the adverb, in the last example, refers to “polytheism,” there can be no
question; it should therefore follow, and not precede, it.
 I am well aware, that many examples may be produced, wherein, with an
arrangement different from that here recommended, the sense would,
notwithstanding, be perfectly clear; and, perhaps, Blair’s collocation, in the last
example, may be adduced as an instance. But when a rule, conducive to
perspicuity, is once established, every unnecessary deviation from it should be
studiously avoided, or, at least, not wantonly adopted.
The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies that theism is capable of
nothing, but of being opposed to polytheism, or atheism; “Theism can only (one
thing, namely) be opposed to polytheism or atheism;” where it is evident that only
refers to be opposed, agreeably to the rule now given. In the same manner, if I
say, “he was only great,” it is implied, that he was nothing but great, the adverb
being placed before the attributive, to which it refers. Hence the question naturally
is, what was he not besides? The answer may be, “not good,” “not wise,” “not
learned.” Were the adverb placed after the pronoun, it would imply, that “he was
the only person who was great.”[131]
I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, in all cases, preclude
ambiguity; but whenever it becomes doubtful, whether the adverb is intended to
affect the preceding substantive, or the following attributive, a different form of
expression may be adopted, and the use of the auxiliary, along with the principal
verb, will, in many instances, ensure perspicuity. This expedient, however, cannot
always be employed. If we say, “The manufacturer only was prosperous,” it may
be uncertain, whether the adverb is to restrict the predicate “prosperous” to the
manufacturer, implying that he was the only prosperous man, or to the verb
expressing past time, signifying that he was then, but is not now prosperous. If
the former be the meaning intended, we may say, “he was the only prosperous
man;” if the latter, we may say, “the manufacturer was once,” or “was then, the
only prosperous man.”
It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if authors had adopted one
uniform practice, placing the adverb constantly, either before or after its subject,
whether a substantive or an attributive[132]. But, where usage is so divided, and
where the adoption of a new and general rule would be now liable to insuperable
objections, all that can be successfully attempted is, in accommodation to existing
circumstances, to reduce the evil within narrow limits, if we cannot, by any precise
rule, entirely remove it. With this view we would recommend, that when the
adverb refers not to a word, but to a sentence or clause, it be placed at the
beginning of that sentence or clause; where it refers to a predicate, it precede the
predicating term; and when it has a reference to a subject, it follow its name or
description. An observation, however, already made, may be here repeated,
namely, that in the last case, a different collocation may often be adopted without
the risk of ambiguity, and even with advantage to the structure of the sentence.
 Note 10.—Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally placed before the adjective
to which they refer. This rule, however, admits a few exceptions. The adverb
enough is always placed after its adjective, as, “the reward was small enough.”
The proper position of this adverb, indeed, seems to be immediately after the
adjective; it is frequently, however, placed at some distance from it, as, “a large
house enough.” Usage is, indeed, somewhat divided on this point, Mr. Baker, and a
few others, pleading for the following arrangement, “a large enough house.” The
former collocation, however, seems far the more general; and is recommended by
that rule, by which the substantive and adjective should be placed in juxta-
position, or as near as possible to each other. The latter is defended by the
principle, that the qualifying adverb should be placed close to the adjective, whose
signification it modifies. This collocation is generally, however, pronounced a
Scotticism; but it is not peculiar to Scotch writers.
Rule XXI.—Conjunctions have no government.
Note 1.—In giving this rule, I differ from all other grammarians, who have
erroneously, as I conceive, assigned them a regimen. Some conjunctions, says
Lowth, govern the indicative, and some the subjunctive mood. This I affirm
without hesitation to be a great mistake; for not a single example, I venture to
assert, can be produced, in which the verb is divested of its indicative form, in
consequence of its being subjoined to any conjunction. The Latins had a form of
the verb, which they properly enough denominated the subjunctive mood;
because, where the meaning was unconditionally assertive, they employed this
form, if the clause was preceded by some particular conjunctive or adverbial term.
Thus, when they said, adeo benevolus erat, ut omnes eum amarent, “he was so
benevolent, that all men loved him,” though the assertion in the latter clause, be
evidently unconditional, as the English shows, they changed the indicative into
another form, because the verb is preceded by the conjunction ut. No similar
example can be produced in English.
Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, conditionality, or contingency is
implied, the mood should be subjunctive; if certainty, or something determinate
and absolute be signified, the verb should be indicative. Now surely, if the sense
require a form different from the indicative, the verb cannot be said to be under
the government of the conjunction; for the verb assumes that form, not because
preceded by the conjunctive term, or because it is under its government, but
because the sentiment to be expressed requires that phraseology. Whether the
conditional, or what Lowth terms the subjunctive, be a distinct form of the verb, or
only an elliptical mode of expression, we have already inquired. See p. 126.
Note 2.—Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference between prepositions and
conjunctions is, that the former couple words, and the latter sentences. This
opinion is erroneous; for conjunctions frequently couple words, as in the following
example: “A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character.” Here it is not
implied, that “a man of wisdom is a perfect character;” but “a man of wisdom
combined with virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue.” That conjunctions, indeed,
do not couple at all, in that sense, at least, in which grammarians have understood
the term, Mr. Tooke seems to have incontestably proved. That they sometimes
couple sentences, or that instances may be produced, in which Harris’s definition
will appear correct, the following example will serve as an evidence: “You, and I,
and John rode to town;” i.e. “you rode,” “and I rode,” “and John rode.” But to
assert, that this is their distinctive property, is to affirm what may be disproved by
numberless examples. If we say, “two and two are four.” Are two four, and two
four? “A B, B C, and C A, form a triangle.” Is A B a triangle? or B C? or C A? “John
and Mary are a handsome couple.” Is John a couple? and Mary a couple? The
common theory, therefore, is false; nor is it to be doubted, that conjunctions are,
in respect to signification, and were originally in regard to their regimen, verbs, or
words compounded of nouns and attributives. In explaining them, however, I
divided them, as the reader may remember, into the several classes of adversative,
concessive, conditional, &c. This I did, not only in conformity to general usage,
and that he might not be a stranger to the names assigned to them; but likewise
for this reason, that, though they originally formed no distinct species of words,
but were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and verbs, they have now assumed
another character, and are construed in a different manner. It is necessary,
however, that he should be acquainted not only with their present use, but also
with their primitive import, and classification.
How these words were degraded from their original rank, and deemed
insignificant, while some, perhaps, lost their syntactical power, is a matter, I
conceive, of no difficult inquiry. For, when the verbs, to which any of these words
belonged, became obsolete, the words themselves, thus separated from their
parent stock, and stripped of that consequence and authority which they thence
derived, their extraction becoming daily more dubious, and their original value
more obscure, sunk by degrees into inferior note, and at last dwindled into
comparative insignificance. Besides, many of them, doubtless, were transplanted
into our language without the radices; their etymology, therefore, being little
known, their primitive character, and real import, would soon be involved in
increasing darkness.
It is to be considered, also, that those who have dispensed the laws of grammar
in our language, or assumed the office of critics, have been generally such as,
though perhaps sufficiently conversant in Greek and Latin, were entirely
unacquainted with the Northern languages. Accustomed, therefore, to render the
conjunctions and prepositions in Greek or Latin, by synonymous English words,
and unacquainted with the true character of these vernacular terms, their etymons
being obsolete, or having never been used in our language, it is easy to conceive
how they would naturally assign to the English words the same character and the
same name which were affixed to the synonymous Latin terms. Nay, this has been
so much the case, that we have ascribed an ambiguous character to several
English words, referring them now to one class, then to another, merely because
they agree in signification with certain Greek and Latin terms, which have been
severally referred by classical grammarians to different orders. That the word
whether has uniformly, in our language, the same import and the same character,
denoting “which of the two,” there can be no doubt; yet, because this word
answers sometimes to an, anne, num, and sometimes to uter, grammarians and
lexicographers have accounted it both a conjunction and a pronoun. Utrum in
Latin has shared the same fate. So far, indeed, has this spirit been carried, that we
will not admit except, according, concerning, respecting, with many similar terms,
to be verbs or participles, because præter, secundum, de, are prepositions. It is
from this propensity to assimilate ours with the Latin language, that all these
errors have arisen.
That the words now termed prepositions and conjunctions were originally verbs,
or nouns, or compounds of these, Tooke has, in my judgment, incontrovertibly
proved. This being admitted, it appears to me highly probable, that they were
primitively construed as such, joined either with the nominative or the objective
case, as the verbs had either a transitive or intransitive meaning; and that they
were followed by either single words or clauses. This, however, is merely
conjecture, founded indeed in the nature of the words, but not supported by any
evidence. In process of time, in consequence of that assimilation which naturally
takes place between a living language and a dead one, much read, much written,
and much admired, these words, when their origin became obscure, would, as I
have remarked, be divested of their primitive character, and be considered as
belonging to those classes, to which the synonymous Latin words were referred.
Hence their regimen would likewise undergo a change. It would appear awkward
and vicious to say now, “I saw nobody but he;” is not improbable, however, that
the mode of expression was originally, “I saw nobody, be out he,” i.e. “he be out.”
But I am now indulging in conjecture, the very error which chiefly has misled us in
our grammatical researches. One thing, however, is certain, that several words,
which were originally employed as prepositions or conjunctions indifferently, have
now acquired a more fixed character, and are used but seldom in a double
capacity. Of this the word without is an example. Thus, it was not unusual to say,
“without you go, I will not,” where the term of exclusion, though in truth a
preposition prefixed to a clause, was considered as a conjunction synonymous
with nisi. This usage, unless in conversation, is now almost entirely relinquished;
and the term without is now generally employed as a preposition, being prefixed
to single words. It is likewise certain that in respect to signification there is no
difference between conjunctions and prepositions: vidi neminem nisi eum, is
equivalent to vidi neminem præter eum. In like manner, “I saw nobody but him,” is
synonymous with “I saw nobody besides him;” in which examples the conjunctions
nisi and but are perfectly synonymous with præter and besides, which are termed
prepositions.
It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunctions be alike verbs, or nouns,
or compounds of these, and if many prepositions and conjunctions be in point of
meaning identical, what forms the ground of distinction between them? It is
simply this, that the former are prefixed to single words only, as nouns and
pronouns, or to clauses involving an infinitive mood[133], the infinitive being
strictly the name of the verb; and that they have a regimen; while the latter are
prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. This is the only distinction between
prepositions and conjunctions as discriminated in modern use. Their original
character is sufficiently established by Mr. Tooke.
I have said that some of these words have, in our language, an ambiguous
character, being employed both as prepositions and conjunctions. Of this the word
than is an example. Priestley seems to consider it as a preposition, and pleads in
favour of the following expression, “you are taller than him,” not “taller than he.”
“Since it is allowed,” says the Doctor, “that the oblique case should follow
prepositions, and since the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle
than, have certainly between them the force of a preposition, expressing the
relation of one word to another, they ought to require the oblique case of the
pronoun following, so that, greater than me will be more grammatical than greater
than I.” Here I cannot concur with the learned author. The same argument would
prove that major quam me, would be more grammatical than major quam ego; a
conclusion which is opposed by universal authority. The truth is, than must be
either a conjunction or a preposition, or both. If a conjunction, it can have no
government, any more than the Latin quam; unless we confound the distinction
which has been just now explained, and is universally admitted, namely, that
conjunctions are distinguished from prepositions, by their having no government.
If it be a preposition, no argument is necessary to prove that it may be joined with
an objective case; for such is the distinguishing character of prepositions. If it be
either a preposition or a conjunction, it follows, that it may be construed either
with or without a regimen. Lowth, with greater propriety, considers it as a
conjunction; and Campbell, in his “Rhetoric,” recommends this usage as the only
means of preventing that ambiguity, which necessarily arises from the employment
of this word as a preposition only. For, if we use it as a preposition, we should say,
“I love you better than him,” whether it be meant “I love you better than I love
him,” or “I love you better than he does.” By using it as a conjunction, the
ambiguity is prevented. For, if the former sentiment be implied, we say, “I love you
better than him,” i.e. “than I love him;” if the latter, we say, “I love you better than
he,” i.e. “than he loves you.” Whatever may have been the original character or
syntax of this word, since usage is now divided, some writers employing it as a
conjunction, and others as a preposition, the grammarian may, consistently with
his duty, plead for that usage only, which prevents ambiguity.
 The rule here recommended is generally violated, when than is joined with the
relative pronoun, as, “Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned.”
“Beelzebub, than whom, Satan excepted, none higher sat.” Salmon has attempted
to account for this almost universal phraseology, by saying, that the expression is
elliptical, being the same as, “than compared with whom.” This explanation is
forced and unnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple fact is, that the word
than was formerly used as a preposition, and, I believe, more frequently than it is
now. Hence, doubtless, arose this phraseology.
Rule XXII.—Derivatives are generally construed like their
primitives; as, “it was a happy thing for this country, that the
Pretender was defeated;” or “happily for this country the Pretender
was defeated.” Thus also, “to compare with,” and “in comparison
with riches;”—“to depend on,” and his “dependence on the court.”
Rule XXIII.—One negative destroys another; or two negatives are
equivalent to an affirmative; as, “nor have I no money, which I can
spare;” that is, “I have money, which I can spare.”—“Nor was the
king unacquainted with his designs;” that is, “he was acquainted.”
Note 1.—Here our language accords with the Latin. In Greek and French, two
negatives render the negation stronger.
Note 2.—This rule is violated in such examples as this, “Nor is danger ever
apprehended in such a government, no more than we commonly apprehend
danger from thunder or earthquakes.” It should be any more.
Rule XXIV.—Interjections are joined with the objective case of the
pronoun of the first person, and with the nominative of the pronoun
of the second, as, “ah me,” “oh me,” “ah thou wretch,” “O thou who
dwellest.”
Syntax being that part of grammar, which teaches rules not only for the concord
and government, but also for the order of words in clauses and sentences, I shall
subjoin the few following brief directions for the guidance of the scholar,
respecting arrangement.
1st. The collocation should never invert the natural order of events, or violate
the principles of reason and metaphysical propriety. It is obvious, for example, that
no person can write, who cannot read. The ability to do the former necessarily
implies a capacity to do the latter. It is preposterous, therefore, to say with
Addison, “There will be few in the next generation, who will not at least be able to
write and read.” He should have said, “to read and write.” “He was the son of a
mother, who had nursed him with maternal tenderness, and had borne him in an
hour of the deepest affliction.” The natural order of events should have dictated
the reverse arrangement. There would be a manifest impropriety in saying “Our
father is well, and alive;” the former state necessarily implying the latter. In the
following passage, however, it is perhaps excusable, the answers particularly
corresponding to the questions: Joseph says to his brothers, “Is your father well?
The old man, of whom ye spake, is he yet alive?” They answer, “Thy servant, our
father, is in good health; he is yet alive.” This error was termed by the ancient
grammarians hysteron proteron; and, though not so palpably as in the preceding
examples, it occurs much more frequently than an inattentive reader is apt to
imagine.
2nd. The English language admits but few inflexions, and therefore little or no
room for variety of arrangement. The connection of one word with another is not
to be perceived, as in Greek and Latin, by correspondence of termination, but by
relative position. This renders it indispensably necessary, that those words which
are intimately related by sense one to another, should be closely connected by
collocation. “The cunning of Hannibal was too powerful for the Pergamenians, who
by the same kind of stratagem had frequently obtained great victories at land.”
The relative here, by its position, must be understood as referring to the
Pergamenians; whereas it is intended to refer to Hannibal. The relative clause,
therefore, should have followed the name of the Carthaginian. “His picture, in
distemper, of calumny, borrowed from the description of one painted by Apelles,
was supposed to be a satire on that cardinal.”—Walpole. The error here is obvious.
He should have said, “His picture of calumny.” “It is folly to pretend to arm
ourselves against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which nothing can
protect us against, but the good providence of our heavenly Father.”—Sherlock.
Here the grammatical antecedent is treasures; but it is intended to be accidents.
The relative is removed from its proper subject.
3rd. As the converse of the preceding rule, it may be observed, that those
words should be separated, which in juxta-position may, at first sight, or first
hearing, possibly convey a meaning which the speaker or writer does not intend.
“I, like a well-bred man, who is never disposed to mortify or to offend, praised
both sorts of food.” As the two introductory words are capable of two meanings,
would it not be better to say, “Like a well-bred man ... I praised both sorts of
food.” I am aware, that the other collocation is preferable, where a particular
stress is to be laid on the principal subject; but ambiguity is an error, which should
be studiously avoided, and the meaning should not be left to the determination of
a comma.
4th. From the preceding rules, it follows as a corollary, that no clause should be
so placed in a sentence, as to be referable either to what precedes, or what
follows. “The knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a compass, and
himself in a manner shut out of his own house, on the death of his mother,
ordered all the apartments to be flung open.” The clause in italics is ambiguously
placed.
5th. When each of two arrangements is equally favourable to perspicuity, and
equally consistent with metaphysical propriety, that should be preferred which is
the more agreeable to the ear.
6th. Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided; and in elevated style, the
clauses should swell towards the close of the sentence. This latter rule, however,
which requires some limitations, belongs to the province of the rhetorician, rather
than to that of the grammarian.
 PA RT I I I .

CHAPTER I.

CANONS OF CRITICISM.

Having explained and illustrated the etymology and syntax of the

English language, as fully as the limits, which I have prescribed to
myself, will permit, I would now request the reader’s attention to
some additional observations.
The grammar of every language is merely a compilation of those
general principles, or rules, agreeably to which that language is
spoken. When I say, a compilation of rules, I would not be
understood to mean, that the rules are first established, and the
language afterwards modelled in conformity to these. The very
reverse is the fact: language is antecedent to grammar. Words are
framed and combined to express sentiment, before the grammarian
can enter on his province. His sole business is, not to dictate forms
of speech, or to prescribe law to our modes of expression; but, by
observing the modes previously established, by remarking their
similarities and dissimilarities, his province is to deduce and explain
the general principles, and the particular forms, agreeably to which
the speakers of that language express themselves. The philosopher
does not determine by what laws the physical and moral world
should be governed; but, by the careful observation and accurate
comparison of the various phenomena presented to his view, he
deduces and ascertains the general principles, by which the system
is regulated. The province of the grammarian seems precisely
similar. He is a mere digester and compiler, explaining what are the
modes of speech, not dictating what they should be. He can neither
assign to any word a meaning different from that which custom has
annexed to it; nor can he alter a phraseology, to which universal
suffrage has given its sanction. Usage is, in this case, law; usage
quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi. If it were now
the practice to say, “I loves,” instead of “I love,” the former
phraseology would rest on the same firm ground, on which the latter
now stands; and “I love,” would be as much a violation of the rules
of grammar, or, which is the same thing, of established usage, as “I
loves” is at present. Regula est, quæ rem, quæ est, breviter enarrat;
non ut ex regula jus sumatur, sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat.—
Paul. Leg. 1, de Reg. Jur.
Having said thus much to prevent misconception, and to define
the proper province of the grammarian, I proceed to observe, that
this usage, which gives law to language, in order to establish its
authority, or to entitle its suffrage to our assent, must be, in the first
place, reputable.
The vulgar in this, as in every other country, are, from their want
of education, necessarily illiterate. Their native language is known to
them no farther, than is requisite for the most common purposes of
life. Their ideas are few, and consequently their stock of words poor
and scanty. Nay, their poverty, in this respect, is not their only evil.
Their narrow competence they abuse and pervert. Some words they
misapply, others they corrupt; while many are employed by them,
which have no sanction, but provincial or local authority. Hence the
language of the vulgar, in one province, is sometimes hardly
intelligible in another. Add to this, that debarred by their occupations
from study, or generally averse to literary pursuits, they are
necessarily strangers to the scientific improvements of a cultivated
mind; and are therefore entirely unacquainted with that diction,
which concerns the higher attainments of life. Ignorant of any
general principles respecting language, to which they may appeal;
unable to discriminate between right and wrong; prone therefore to
adopt whatever usage casual circumstances may present; it is no
wonder, if the language of the vulgar be a mixture of incongruity and
error, neither perfectly consistent with itself, nor to themselves
universally intelligible. Their usage, therefore, is not the standard, to
which we must appeal for decisive authority; a usage so discordant
and various, that we may justly apply to it the words of a celebrated
critic,
Bellua multorum es capitum; nam quid sequar, aut quem?
The question then is, what is reputable usage? On this subject
philologists have been divided. Dr. Campbell appears to me to decide
judiciously, when he says, that the usage, to which we must appeal,
is not that of the court, or of great men, nor even of authors of
profound science, but of those, whose works are esteemed by the
public, and who may, therefore, be denominated reputable authors.
By referring to their practice, he appeals to a standard less
equivocal, than if he had resorted to the authority of good writers;
for, as he justly observes, there may be various opinions respecting
the merits of authors, when there may be no disagreement
concerning the rank which they hold in the estimation of the public;
and, because it is the esteem of the public, and not their intrinsic
merit, (though these go generally hand in hand,) that raises them to
distinction, and stamps a value on their language. Besides, it is to be
observed, that consummate knowledge is not always accompanied
with a talent for communicating it: hence the sentiment may be
confessedly valuable, while the language is regarded as of no
authority.
This usage must be, in the second place, national. It must not be
confined to this or that province; it must not be the usage of this or
that district, the peculiarities of which are always ridiculous, and
frequently unintelligible beyond its own limits; but it must be the
general language of the country, intelligible everywhere, and in no
place ridiculous. And, though the variety of dialects may collectively
form a greater number of authorities than national usage can boast,
taken singly they are much fewer. Those, to use Campbell’s apposite
similitude, who deviate from the beaten road, may be incomparably
more numerous than those who travel in it; yet, into whatever
number of by-paths the former may be divided, there may not be
found in any one of these tracks so many as travel in the king’s
highway.
In the third place, this usage must be present. Here it may be
asked, what is meant by present usage? Is it the usage of the
present year, the present age, or the present century? How is it
defined, or by what boundary is it limited? In short, how far may we
revert in search of decisive authority? may we go back, for example,
as far as Chaucer, or must we stop at the age of Addison?
In determining this matter, the same learned and judicious critic
observes, that regard must be had to the species of composition and
the nature of the subject. Poetry is properly allowed a greater
latitude than prose; and therefore, a word, which in prose we should
reject as a barbarism, may, with strict propriety, be admitted in
verse. Here, also, there are limits which must not be passed; and,
perhaps, any word, which cannot plead the authority of Milton, or of
any contemporary or later poet, may be justly regarded as obsolete.
In prose, no word, unless the subject be art or science, should be
employed, which has been disused for a period greater than the age
of man. This is the judgment of the same critic. Against this answer,
indeed, it is possible to raise a thousand cavils; and, perhaps, we
shall be reminded of the poet’s strictures on the term ancient in his
days[134]. One thing, however, is certain, that, though it be difficult
to fix a precise limit, where the authority of precedent terminates,
and legislative usage commences, or to define with precision the age
of man, it must be acknowledged, that there are limits, in respect to
usage, which we must not overleap, as there is a certain term, which
the life of man cannot surpass.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com