ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

copula (i. e. the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative. -It is I; I am safe.

Rule 2.-All words in apposition with a word so connected must be nominative.-It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language, from our want of inflections. In Latin, however, we say vocor Johannes = I am called John, not vocor Johannem. Here the logical equivalent is ego sum vocatus Johannes-where

1. Ego, is nominative because it is the subject.

2. Vocatus is nominative because it is the predicate, agreeing with the subject.

3. Johannes is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in apposition with vocatus.

N.B. Although in precise language Johannes is said to agree with vocatus rather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement the apposition of adjectives.

Rule 3.-All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle, have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the same condition as simple copulas― she walks a queen = she is walking a queen illa est incedens regina.

Rule 4.-The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the conjunction that, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition.

This rule determines the propriety of the expression-I believe that it is he as opposed to the expression I believe that it is him.

I believe = I am believing, and forms one proposition.
It is he, forms a second.

That, connects the two; but belongs to neither.

Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate.

N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction that is not used) as to the greater propriety of the two expressions

I believe it to be him-I believe it to be he-has yet to be considered.

§ 495. The verb and genitive case.-No verb in the present English governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did: e. g. verbs of ruling and others-weolde thises middangeardes he ruled (wealded) this earth's. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in Latin and Greek. To eat of the fruit of the tree is no genitive construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. Fruit is in the objective case, and is governed not by the verb, but by the preposition of.

§ 496. The verb and accusative.-All transitive verbs govern an accusative case,-he strikes me, thee, him, her, it, us, you, them.

The verb and dative case.-The word give, and a few others, govern a dative case. Phrases like give it him, whom shall I give it? are perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional construction give it to him,—to whom shall I give it? is unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the adjective like.

§ 497. The partitive construction.-Certain transitive verbs, the action whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object, are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. To eat of the fruit of the tree = to eat a part (or some) of the fruit of the tree: to drink of the water of the well to drink a part (or some) of the water of the well. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of the word part (or some). The construction is a construction that has grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the preposition of, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent.

$498. It has been already stated that forms like I believe it to be him, and forms like I believe it to be he, had not been investigated. Of these, the former is, logically, correct.

Here, the word, to be, is, in respect to its power, a noun. As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb believe. With this accusative infinitive, it agrees, as being part of the same complex idea. And him does the same.

In English we have two methods of expressing one idea; the method in question, and the method by means of the conjunction that.

1. I believe it to be him.

2. I believe that it is he.

In the first example, it is the object; and it-to-be-him forms one complex term.

In the second, he agrees with it; and it is the subject of a separate, though connected, proposition.

Of these two forms the Latin language adopts but one, viz. the former, credo eum esse, not credo quod illud est ille.

§ 499. The expression ob differentiam.-The classical languages, although having but one of the two previous forms, are enabled to effect a variation in the application of it, which, although perhaps illogical, is convenient. When the speaker means himself, the noun that follows esse, or εiva, is nominative,—onμì ɛivai deσTóτns = I say that I am the master: ait fuisse celerrimus = he says that he himself was the swiftest—but, pnμì eivai deotótηv = I say that he (some one else) is the master; and ait fuisse celerrimum he says that he (some one else) is the swiftest. This, though not adopted in English, is capable of being adopted,-He believes it to be he (i. e. the speaker) who invented the machine; but, he believes it to be him (that is, another person) who invented it.

§ 500. When the substantive infinitive, to be, is preceded by a passive participle, combined with the verb substantive, the construction is nominative-it is believed to be he who spoke, not it is believed to be him.-Here there are two propositions :

1. It is believed.—
2. Who spoke.

Now, here, it is the subject, and, as such, nominative. But it is also the equivalent to to be he, which must be nominative as well. To be he is believed esse-ille creditur,—or, changing the mode of proof,

1. It is the subject and nominative.

2. Believed is part of the predicate; and, consequently, nominative also.

3. To be he is a subordinate part of the predicate, in apposition with believed-est creditum, nempe entitas ejus. Or, to be he is believed = esse-ille est creditum.

As a general expression for the syntax of copulas and appositional constructions, the current rule, that copulas and appositional verbs must be followed by the same case by which they are preceded, stands good.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.

§ 501. Meseems. -Equivalent to it seems to me; mihi videtur, φαίνεταί μοι. The verb seems is intransitive; consequently the pronoun me has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.

Methinks.-In Anglo-Saxon there are two forms; þencan = to think, and pincan = to seem. It is from the latter form that the verb in methinks comes. Such being the case, it is intransitive, and consequently the pronoun me has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.

Of this word we have also the past form methought.

Methought I saw my late espoused wife
Brought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave.

MILTON.

Me listeth, or me lists.-Equivalent to it pleases me = me juvat. Anglo-Saxon lystan to wish, to choose, also to please, to delight; Norse, lysta. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so that the pronoun me has the power of an accusative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.

These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language. They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is the case with the equivalent expressions it appears, it pleases, and with all the other verbs in the language.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »