guages, in reference to a certain class of verbs which, in those languages, take after them always a dative modification. The class corresponding in meaning in English, seem very generally to have originally taken the same form of modification. The fact has been concealed by the gradual disappearance of a distinct dative form.

It requires much greater knowledge of the sources from which our language is derived, and of its early history, than can be expected in those who are engaged in the study of grammar, to detect these datives, which have come insensibly to be regarded as accusatives. Besides, they have been long recognised as standing to their verbs in the same relation as other accusatives, and the verbs have, consequently, come to be recognised, and are now employed, in all respects, as active verbs. They generally take a passive form, having for its subject the noun which follows and modifies their active form; and this is usually considered the test of a transitive verb.

We do not, therefore, intend to introduce any innovation in the practical analysis of propositions in which such verbs occur, though we have thought that it would contribute to a proper understanding of the dative form of modification in our language, to direct the attention of the curious reader to the facts now presented.

In reference to those datives which, together with an accusative, follow active verbs, the case is different. These datives cannot be analyzed as objective modifications; and when we must adopt a mode of treating them distinct from the objective modification, it is best, we think, to state the facts, in accordance with the real history of our language. We may as well admit the fact, that nouns and pronouns placed between the active verb and its objective modification, have the force of datives, without any reference to the suppression of the prepositions to or for.

We have also found ourselves obliged to recognise the dative, in treating the impersonals Me seems, Me thinks, &c., because this is necessary to the correct explanation of these antiquated expressions. There are some other impersonals generally preceded by the representative word IT, followed by nouns which had originally a dative force. Instances are found above, among the examples quoted from Mr. Taylor's notes; please is one.

The remarks which we have made on the dative, afford a key to the explanation of such expressions as "Woe is me!" and "Oh, wel is him."— Sternhold and Hopkins. Me and him are simply datives, not accusatives, as is commonly supposed through inattention to the fact, that one of these forms (him) was once used exclusively in the dative sense; and the other (me) used both in the dative and accusative sense. There are likely many other expressions which may be readily explained in the same manner. Perhaps Ah me is to be thus explained. The expression “Wo worth the day" (Ezekiel 30: 2), is also thus explained. Worth is a verb (meaning to be, to become) current in the Anglo-Saxon, and anciently used in English, and still

in German; day stands as dative modification to this verb. The meaning is, Woe be to the day.-See Bishop Lowth's note, quoted below.

We find four examples of worth, with its dative modifications, in the following four lines of Chaucer:

Wo worth the faire gemme vertulesse;

Wo worth the hearbe, also, that doth no bote (i. e. help, remedy),
Wo worth the beauty that is routhlesse (i. e. without compassion),
Wo worth that wight that trede ech under fote.

Troilus and Cres. ii. 344.

Here gemme, hearbe, beauty, wight, are all datives to worth, in their respective propositions-Woe be to the fair gem, &c.

It deserves to be remarked, as a curious fact in the history of the transition of words from their original meanings and construction, that persuade now takes after it an accusative of the person, and what is equivalent to a dative of the thing (that is, a noun preceded by the preposition to), though in Latin, both suadeo and persuadeo take the dative of the person and accusative of the thing; as, persuasit id eis-He persuaded this to them. We say, He persuaded them to this.

22) There is another fact in relation to datives, placed between active verbs and their objective modification, which must not be forgotten, since it is essential to the explanation and correct analysis of certain forms of expression of frequent recurrence in our language. (23) The fact to which we refer is this, that those verbs which, actively employed, admit these datives followed by accusatives, when the expression assumes the passive form, often take what served as dative modification (or indirect object) in the active form for their subject noun. (24) To illustrate by an example; we say in the active form, The porter refused him admittance, and in the passive form, Admittance was refused to him by the porter, or using the dative without a connective, ADMITTANCE was refused him. Here we employ regularly (in conformity with the universally recognised laws of language) admittance, the objective in the active form for subject in the passive form. But we also very often (perhaps more frequently) say, He was refused admittance by the porter, usurping the pronoun which served as dative in the active, for subject in the passive form of expression, contrary to

(22) Repeat the remark under No. (22). (23) State the fact referred to in the last remark. (24) Illustrate what has been said by an example. (25) What will the learner here observe?

the general analogies or laws of language. (25) Here the learner will observe, that the passive verb retains after it the objective modification, as happens with the passive forms of teach and ask, and some other verbs in the ancient languages, which, like these, take two objective modifications in the active form.*

(26) CAUTION.-Be careful not to confound with these verbs which take two OBJECTIVE modifications, those which take with the objective a noun complementary. It will be remembered that such noun complementary, though used after the passive verb, stands in a very differ

* Some grammarians contend that these passive forms of expression, in which the indirect object of the active form serves as subject, are to be rejected as altogether improper and ungrammatical. There is, no doubt, a kind of irregularity in these passive forms. We have admitted this, in saying that they are contrary to the general analogies of language. They are rare in other languages, though not exclusively confined to English. But it is too late now to proscribe these forms as bad English. They are used by our best authors, and by the best speakers.

We suspect that this construction has originated in an insensible extension of the same usage to these verbs, followed by a dative and accusative, which at first perhaps extended only to verbs, followed by two accusatives. We can with propriety say, both Grammar is taught, and The scholar is taught. Hence we say with propriety in the passive, The scholar is taught grammar. And from such expressions as, The scholar is taught grammar, probably an insensible transition has been made to the usage in question, where as in the passive use of teach, the person affected by the action becomes the subject, in forgetfulness or disregard of the fact that this person does not stand in the same relation to the active verb-is not used as in the case of teach to express its direct object.

Whatever may have been the origin of this use, there is no doubt that it has now become a settled idiom of our language; and it is vain for the grammarian to attempt to eradicate it. His business is to exhibit the language as it is, not to attempt to make it what he fancies it should be. When a form of expression is not yet firmly established-universally received-in the language, but apparently making its way towards general usage, the grammarian may with propriety employ his efforts to suppress it, if it does not harmonize with the general laws of language, or if it in any way offends good taste. But what is once established, he had better, like a man of modesty and good sense, admit, and spend his efforts in accounting for its reception, in contravention of general principles, rather than in the Quixotic, attempt to extirpate all the apparent anomalies of speech.

(26) Repeat the caution.

ent relation to the noun which serves as objective of the active, and subject of the passive form of proposition, varies its case as this noun varies its function, and never holds the relation of objective modification to a passive verb.

We subjoin a few examples for the purpose of illustrating these peculiar passive forms of expression, and also, incidentally, the use of the dative modification. These passives which take the indirect object for their subject are confined to a few verbs (exclusively, we believe, such as we have enumerated above) which take a personal or indirect object without a preposition between them and their objective modification. Even these are not all employed passively in the manner described. We present below the two active forms of expression made with each verb, the one with, the other without a preposition before the indirect object, and the two passive forms--one regular with the passive object for its subject, the other (we may call) idiomatic, with the personal object for its subject.

Act. with Preposition,
Act. without Prep.
Pass. Regular,

Pass. Idiomatic,

Act. with Prep.,

Act. without Prep.,

Pass. Regular,

Pass. Idiomatic,

The minister offered a pension to him.
The minister offered him a pension.

A pension was offered him, or to him, by, &c.
He was offered a pension, by, &c.

He promised a present to me.

He promised me a present.

A present was promised me, or to me.
I was promised a present.

To make the learner familiar with these constructions let him write a given number of propositions after the model exhibited above (exemplifying the two active and two passive forms), with the following verbs: allow, deny, pay, refuse, tell. Let him afterwards analyze his examples, or he may, when writing the propositions, accompany them with the abbreviations used in a written analysis.

When called on to analyze the idiomatic passive form, for example, I was promised a present, he will say, as in the analysis of the passives of ask and teach, that the verb was promised is modified by the objective noun present. If any question is made about a passive verb taking an objective modification, the learner may reply that, The verbs allow, DENY, OFFER, PAY, REFUSE, TELL, &c., taking after them a dative and objective modification, sometimes, when passively employed, take the dative or personal object, instead of the passive object for their subject, and retain the same objective modification as when actively employed.

NOTE.-The grammarians have generally classed ask and teach with those verbs which take an accusative and dative to modify them. But we thuk

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 м 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 re garded 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 ganctions 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 judg ment expressed in the note. The observation is repeated by every genera.