that ask and teach differ widely from this class of verbs. Ask and teach do not naturally take after them a noun with the preposition to, to express the person who is asked or taught. It is not, we think, in accordance with the general usage of the language to say, I ASKED a question тO HIM, or, A question was asked TO HIM. We do not say that such expressions are never employed; but we say that they are not so consistent with ancient and well received and respectable usage as to say, I asked HIM a question, or, He was asked a QUESTION. I taught grammar TO HIM, though perhaps sometimes used, appears to us, if not absolutely ungrammatical, at least, inconsistent with ancient and established usage, as well as clumsy. In the passive we always say, He was taught grammar, not Grammar was taught to him. The form of expression, Grammar was taught him, is perhaps awkward, but it appears to us less objectionable, than Grammar was taught to him. In a word, the two nouns which follow ask and teach, are both to be regarded as accusatives, and the employment of these two accusatives after them, is to be accounted for perhaps in the manner attempted above (§ 78, Note); and these two verbs, as we have before said; form a peculiar class by themselves. On the contrary, the verbs allow, deny, offer, &c., can always take after them in both active and passive forms, their personal object preceded by the preposition to, without violence to the sense; and when no preposition is used, and the personal object is placed before the passive object in the order of arrangement, the case is always to be considered a dative, never an accusative. For example in such expressions as, John promised HIM assistance; Assistance was promised HIM by John, HIM is a dative, never an accusative. Even when preceded by the preposition it was in the ancient language a dative; for the preposition to often preceded a dative, never an accusative. But this belongs to another place. The fact, that we have retained in so many instances the dative use in our language after the dative form had disappeared, seems to have escaped the notice of most of our grammarians, and hence their analysis of certain constructions is far from satisfactory. Bishop Lowth suggests in a note that when personal pronouns without a preposition or intermediary, are used to express the personal object after a verb, they may possibly be datives. Dr. Latham has brought the dative use of the pronouns, and the fact that the forms now called objective or accusative cases, all served anciently as datives, prominently to view. But as far as I recollect, he has not noticed that nouns under the same circumstances serve as datives, viz., when the noun expressing the personal object is placed next the verb, and before the accusative. We transcribe the chief part of Dr. Lowth's note, as it both sanctions and illustrates the view we have given of this construction. The reader will notice that we have used some of his examples already. The note is appended to an observation, contradicted by his better judgment expressed in the note. The observation is repeated by every genera tion of his followers, to the neglect of his valuable and well supported suggestion in the note. The best things of Dr. Lowth are not those which have been most freely appropriated by some of his followers. The observation is as follows: "The prepositions to and for are often understood, chiefly before the pronoun; as, 'Give me the book; get me some paper;' that is, to me, for me." NOTE.-"Or in these and the like phrases, may not me, thee, him, her, us, which in Saxon are the dative cases of their respective pronouns, be considered as still continuing such in the English, and including in their very form the force of the prepositions to and for? There are certainly some other phrases, which are to be resolved in this manner: Wo is me! The phrase is pure Saxon, 'Wa is me:' me is the dative case; in English, with the preposition, to me. So, methinks: Saxon, 'methineth: por doxeî 'As us thoughte.'-Sir John Maundevylle. "The Lord do that which seemeth him good.'—2 Sam. x. 12. 'Well is him, that dwelleth with a wife of understanding.' 'Well is him, that hath found prudence.'-Ecclus. xxv. 8, 9. 'Wo worth the day!' Ezek. xxx. 2, that is, 'Wo be to the day.' The word worth is not the adjective, but the Saxon verb weorthan, or worthan, fieri, to be, to become, which is often used by Chaucer, and is still retained as an auxiliary verb in the German language."-Intro. to Eng. Gram., pp. 169, 170, ed. 1778. § 80. [Order of SEQUENCE OF MODIFICATIONS OR COMPLEMENTS.— Before dismissing this subject of modifying nouns attached to verbs and nouns without the intervention of other words, it may be useful to say something about the order of sequence of different forms of modi fications or complements. We have already touched this subject incidentally, but it is proper to invite the attention of the student more directly to a subject of such importance to a satisfactory knowledge of the structure of language. We have noticed, as we proceeded, the sequence in order of arrangement of the several modifications which we have treated. (2) To recapitulate, the noun in apposition generally follows the principal noun; the noun adjectively employed precedes it; the noun complementary of the neuter verb follows the verb; the genitive ease modification precedes the principal noun; the objective modification usually follows the verb, and comes next to it, except there is a dative modification, in which case this latter takes precedence; when there is an objective and a noun complementary after an active verb, the objective regularly takes precedence of the complementary noun. 80. [(1) What is meant by the Order of Sequence of Modifications? Ans. The order in which modifications follow the principal word. (2) Recapitulate what has been said in reference to the order of sequence of the several modifications already treated. But another question presents itself in reference to the sequence of modifications, or the manner in which modifications or complements follow each other-a question of the greatest importance in the investigation of the structure of language, and one to which our ordinary grammarians have unfortunately paid little or no attention. Indeed, the imperfect, clumsy, irregular, unsatisfactory mode of grammatical analysis hitherto generally adopted tends to hide this question from the student of grammar. (3) The question to which we allude is this; when two or more modifying words are attached to a principal word, which has the precedence in sense or which is most intimately connected in sense with the principal word? (4) Before we enter on the direct examination of this question, it is important to remark, that when two or more complements of different kinds are attached to the same principal word, they are not attached to it separately and independently of each other, with no reference to any thing but the principal word. (5) On the contrary, the complement most intimately connected in sense with the principal word, and the principal word, bound together as one compound expression, are both completed by the complement which follows in the order of sense. (6) Next, it will be remarked, that the question about the order of sense or meaning is not the same with that in reference to the order of arrangement. In other words, the order of arrangement in speaking and the order of sense-of thought-do not always coincide. (7) In fact, as regards the instances of two modifications of distinct kinds attached to the same principal word which we have been examining, the order of thought and the order of the arrangement of the words most commonly differ. We have already called attention to this fact in the note upon the modifications which follow the verb teach. (8) To return to the original question; let us take an example first of the construction in which the active verb is followed by an objective modification and by a noun complementary. (9) The Senate declared Cincinnatus Dictator. (10) Here the question is, which of the two nouns, Cincinnatus and Dictator, used to modify the verb declared, has the more intimate connection with it, or which, taken in connection with the verb, is further modified by the other. (11) This question we already answered in giving the name complementary (8) State the question which now presents itself for consideration. (4) Repeat the preliminary remark. (5) Complete the remark in reference to the most intimate complement and principal word, &c. (6) Repeat the remark about the order of sense and the order of arrangement. Express the remark in other words. (7) What in fact happens in the modifications already considered in reference to this matter? (8) Of what construction do we first select an example? (9) Repeat the example. (10) What question is raised in reference to the example? (11) Where has this been already to nouns performing functions similar to those of the word Dictator in the above proposition. (12) The complementary noun has the more intimate connection with the verb; it completes the expression of the action performed by the senate, which complete action is limited, by adding the word Cincinnatus to the person bearing that name. (13) In other words, the action declaring Dictator is restricted to Cincinnatus, and not the action of declaring alone, unmodified, limited to Cincinnatus, nor the action of declaring Cincinnatus restricted by Dictator. (14) Again the same question recurs, when we employ both an objective and a dative modification after a verb, which of these two modifications is most intimately, most directly, or first in sense connected with the verb-the accusative or the dative? For exampleThe instructor gave John a book. (15) Here it is manifest that the objective modification, BOOK, comes first in sense, though it stands last in the order of arrangement. It is not gave alone, but gave a book, that is restricted, limited, or, to use the more general term, modified by the dative HIM. (16) It is perfectly obvious, when the same function is performed by the word him, preceded by the preposition to, that the objective modification comes first in the sequence of sense, as it then does, also, in the order of arrangement; The instructor gave a book TO HIM; here gave a book is limited by to him. (17) So, also, in reference to all noun and preposition modifications (or adjuncts, as some call them-a name perhaps too vague, but very convenient on account of its shortness) following active verbs with objective modifications. First, as regards sense, the verb is modified by the objective, and then the compound expression, made up of the verb and the objective noun, is modified by the noun with a preposition. (18) So far, then, as regards those forms of modification of the verb already considered, the regular sequence in reference to sense is, that the complementary noun, when there is one in the construction, has the closest connection with the verb, and the expression formed by the verb and it comes under the influence of the modifications superadded. The objective noun comes next in the order of sense, and all answered? (12) Repeat the answer. (13) Repeat the latter part of the answer in other words. (14) State the question of sequence in application to the objective and dative modifications; and furnish example. (15) Which of these modifications comes first in sense? Illustrate by example. (16) Illustrate by the case in which the dative function is performed by the pronoun preceded by the particle to. (17) How is it in reference to the sequence of the noun and preposition and objective modifications? (18) Repeat what is said by way of recapitulation. other forms of modification, such as datives and nouns, with preposi tions, &c., affect the expression made up of the verb and objective noun; or, in case there is present a complementary noun as well as an objective noun, affect the expression made up of the verb, the complementary noun, and the objective noun. (19) We shall be able hereafter, without difficulty or tedious explanation, to apply these remarks in noticing the sequence of the several forms of modification which remain to be treated. For the same order of sense may be traced, and ought to be carefully traced, in all cases, not only when we attach modifications consisting of single words or phrases, but also when we employ accessory propositions to modify the subject or predicate of the principal proposition. (20) Such is the mode in which the most complicated propositions are built up such is their structure or CONSTRUCTION. We lay the foundation with the SUBJECT NOUN and the VERB. To each of these we add the first complements necessary to qualify them (to express more exactly our meaning); and to what we have thus constructed, still other complements, one after another, till we have completed the intended structure; just as in erecting a house, we commence with the foundation, and add stone after stone, not to the foundation alone, but to the part of the structure already raised, till the whole is finished.* * The same order it is our wish to introduce in the ANALYSIS of language. We endeavor to follow in the resolution of every proposition the order of thought pursued in the construction of the proposition. The method we adopt is thus designed to be at once analytic and synthetic, or constructive. By this method, the learner is made familiar with the art of building up sentences, and not merely taught to take up the disjecta membra―the scattered fragments of the structure-without a proper regard to their place in the building. In other words, we examine the parts of the building regarded as a structure standing in all its just proportions, and not the mass of unconnected ruins which results from its violent demolition. We think that this plan is much better calculated to guide the young student to the correct construction of sentences, to cultivate a nice perception of the defects of ill-constructed sentences, and to prepare him to amend with ease and promptitude any imperfection which he may detect. The plan pursued is intended to make him, if natural good taste is not wanting, an accomplished architect of that curious and complicated, and beautiful and most useful structure-LANGUAGE. (19) Repeat the substance of the remark under No. 19. |