RULE XIV.

PARTICIPLES have the same government as the I am

verbs from which they are derived: as, weary with hearing him;"" She is instructing us;” "The tutor is admonishing Charles*."

I. Participles are sometimes governed by the article ; for the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive, and must have the preposition of after it: as, "These are the rules of grammar, by the observing of which, you may avoid mistakes." It would not be proper to say, "by the observing which;" nor, "by observing of which;" but the phrase, without either article or preposition, would be right: as, "by observing which." The article a or an, has the same effect: as, "This was a betraying of the trust reposed in him."

This rule arises from the nature and idiom of our language, and from as plain a principle as any on which it is founded; namely, that a word which has the article before it, and the possessive preposition of after it, must be a noun: and, if a noun, it ought to follow the construc tion of a noun, and not to have the regimen of a verb. It is the participial termination of this sort of words that is apt to deceive us, and make us treat them as if they were of an amphibious species, partly nouns and partly verbs.

The following are a few examples of the violation of this rule." He was sent to prepare the way by preach

Though the participle is not a part of speech distinct from the verb, yet as it forms a particular and striking part of the verb, and has some rules and observations which are peculiar to it, we think it is entitled to a separate, distinctive consideration.

ing of repentance;" it ought to be, " by the preaching of repentance;" or, by preaching repentance." "By the continual mortifying our corrupt affections;" it should be," by the continual mortifying of," or, by continually mortifying our corrupt affections." "They

laid out themselves towards the advancing and promoting the good of it;" "towards advancing and promoting the good." "It is an overvaluing ourselves, to reduce every thing to the narrow measure of our capacities;" "it is overvaluing ourselves," or, an overvaluing of ourselves." Keeping of one day in seven," &c. it ought to be," the keeping of one day;" or, "keeping one day."

66

A phrase in which the article precedes the present participle and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning, as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition. "He expressed the pleasure he had in the hearing of the philosopher," is capable of a different sense from, "He expressed the pleasure he had in hearing the philosopher." When, therefore, we wish, for the sake of harmony or variety, to substitute one of these phraseologies for the other, we should previously consider, whether they are perfectly similar in the sentiments they convey,

2. The same observations, which have been made respecting the effect of the article and participle, appear to be applicable to the pronoun and participle, when they are similarly associated: as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule, and error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it," instead of their observing the rule, and their neglecting it." We shall perceive this more clearly, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, "Much depends upon Tyro's observing of the rule," &c.; which is the same as, "Much depends on Tyro's obser◄

2

vange of the rule." But, as this construction sounds rather harshly, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: "Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected:" or—" on observing the rule; and—of neglecting it." This remark may be applied to several other modes of expression to be found in this work; which, though they are contended for as strictly correct, are not always the most eligible, on account of their unpleasant sound. See pages 80, 107,

542—246.

We sometimes meet with expressions like the following:

In forming of his sentences, he was very exact;""From calling of names, he proceeded to blows." But this is incorrect language; for prepositions do not, like articles and pronouns, convert the participle itself into the nature of a substantive; as we have shown above in the phrase,

66

By observing which." And yet the participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb, expressed or understood: as, " By promising much, and performing but little, we become despicable." "He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely."

3. As the perfect participle and the imperfect tense, are sometimes different in their form, care must be taken that they be not indiscriminately used. It is frequently said, "He begun," for " he began ;""he run," for " he ran;" "He drank," for " he drank;" the participle being here used instead of the imperfect tense: and much more frequently the imperfect tense instead of the participle: as, "I had wrote," for "I had written:" "I was chose," for "I was chosen ;" "I have eat," for "I have eaten." "His words were interwove with sighs;" were interwoven." "He would have spoke;" "spoken." hath bore witness to his faithful servants;"

66

"He

"borne."

"over-ran."

"By this means he over-run his guide;" "The sun has rose ;" "risen." "His constitution has been greatly shook, but his mind is too strong to be shook by such causes;" "shaken," in both places. "They were verses wrote on glass;" "written." Philosophers have often mistook the source of true happiness:" it ought to be "mistaken."

The participle ending in ed is often improperly contracted, by changing ed into it as, "In good behaviour, he is not surpast by any pupil of the school." "She was much distrest." They ought to be, "surpassed," "distressed."

When a substantive is put absolutely, and does not agree with the following verb, it remains independent on the participle, and is called the case absolute, or the nominative absolute: as, "The painter being entirely confined to that part of time he has chosen, the picture comprises but very few incidents." Here, the painter agrees with no verb, as the verb comprises, which follows, agrees with picture. But when the substantive preceding the participle agrees with the subsequent verb, it loses its absoluteness, and is like every other nominative: as, "The painter, being entirely confined to that part of time which he has chosen, cannot exhibit various stages of the same action." In this sentence we see that the painter governs, or agrees with, the verb can, as its nominative case. In the following sentence, a still different construction takes place: "The painter's being entirely confined to that part of time which he has chosen, deprives him of the power of exhibiting various stages of the same action." In this sentence, if we inquire for the nominative case, by asking, what deprives the painter of the power of exhibiting various stages of the same action, we shall find it to be, the confinement of the painter to that part of time which

he has chosen; and this state of things belonging to the painter governs it in the possessive case, and forms the compound nominative to the verb deprives.

In the sentence, "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 disregarded, deserves attention; for it is obvious, that ambiguity may arise, from using the latter only of these phraseologies, to express both meanings.

The active participle is frequently introduced without an obvious reference to any noun or pronoun: as, Generally speaking, his conduct was very honourable:" "Granting this to be true, what is to be inferred from it?" "It is scarcely possible to act otherwise, considering the frailty of human nature." In these sentences, there is no noun expressed or implied, to which speaking, granting, and considering, can be referred. The most natural construction seems to be, that a pronoun is to be understood: as, "We considering the frailty of human nature," &c.; "I granting this to be true;" &c.

The word the, before the active participle, in the following sentences, and in all others of a similar construction, is improper, and should be omitted: "This style. may be more properly called the talking upon paper than writing" "The advising, or the attempting, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful:" "The taking from another what is his, without his knowledge or allowance, is called stealing." They should be; "May be called talking upon paper;" "Advising or attempting to excite disturbances;" "Taking from another what is his, &c."