The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 248Observations on Rule XX. (1)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
OBS. 1.—To this rule, I incline to think, there are properly no other exceptions than the first two above; or, at least, that we ought to avoid, when we can, any additional anomalies. Yet, not to condemn with unbecoming positiveness what others receive for good English, I have subjoined two items more, which include certain other irregularities now very common, that, when examples of a like form occur, the reader may parse them as exceptions, if he does not choose to censure them as errors. The mixed construction in which participles are made to govern the possessive case, has already been largely considered in the observations on Rule 4th. Murray, Allen, Churchill, and many other grammarians, great and small, admit that participles may be made the subjects or the objects of verbs, while they retain the nature, government, and adjuncts, of participles; as, "Not attending to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 200; Comly's Gram., 188; Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., 170. "Polite is employed to signify their being highly civilized.'"—Blair's Rhet., p. 219. "One abhors being in debt."—Ib., p. 98; Jamieson's Rhet., 71; Murray's Gram., 144. "Who affected being a fine gentleman so unmercifully."—Spect., No. 496. "The minister's being attached to the project, prolonged their debate."—Nixon's Parser, p. 78. "It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that acting thus would gratify one passion; not acting, or acting otherwise, would gratify another."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 109. "But further, cavilling and objecting upon any subject is much easier than clearing up difficulties."—Bp. Butler's Charge to the Clergy of Durham, 1751.
OBS. 2.—W. Allen observes, "The use of the participle as a nominative, is one of the peculiarities of our language."—Elements of Gram., p. 171. He might have added, that the use of the participle as an objective governed by a verb, as a nominative after a verb neuter, or as a word governing the possessive, is also one of the peculiarities of our language, or at least an idiom adopted by no few of its recent writers. But whether any one of these four modern departures from General Grammar ought to be countenanced by us, as an idiom that is either elegant or advantageous, I very much doubt. They are all however sufficiently common in the style of reputable authors; and, however questionable their character, some of our grammarians seem mightily attached to them all. It becomes me therefore to object with submission. These mixed and irregular constructions of the participle, ought, in my opinion, to be generally condemned as false syntax; and for this simple reason, that the ideas conveyed by them may generally, if not always, be expressed more briefly, and more elegantly, by other phraseology that is in no respect anomalous. Thus, for the examples above: "Inattention to this rule, is the cause of a very common error."—"Polite is employed to signify a high degree of civilization;" or, "that they are highly civilized."—"One abhors debt."—"Who affected the fine gentleman so unmercifully."—"The minister's partiality to the project, prolonged their debate."—"It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that to act thus, would gratify one passion; and that not to act, or to act otherwise, would gratify another."—"But further, to cavil and object, upon any subject, is much easier than to clear up difficulties." Are not these expressions much better English than the foregoing quotations? And if so, have we not reason to conclude that the adoption of participles in such instances is erroneous and ungrammatical?
OBS. 3.—In Obs. 17th on Rule 4th, it was suggested, that in English the participle, without governing the possessive case, is turned to a greater number and variety of uses, than in any other language. This remark applies mainly to the participle in ing. Whether it is expedient to make so much of one sort of derivative, and endeavour to justify every possible use of it which can be plausibly defended, is a question well worthy of consideration. We have already converted this participle to such a multiplicity of purposes, and into so many different parts of speech, that one can well-nigh write a chapter in it, without any other words. This practice may have added something to the copiousness and flexibility of the language, but it certainly has a tendency to impair its strength and clearness. Not every use of participles is good, for which there may be found precedents in good authors. One may run to great excess in the adoption of such derivatives, without becoming absolutely unintelligible, and without violating any rule of our common grammars. For example, I may say of somebody, "This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate." Now, in what other language than ours, can a string of words anything like the following, come so near to a fair and literal translation of this long sentence? "This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating." Here are not all the uses to which our writers apply the participle in ing, but there would seem to be enough, without adding others that are less proper.
OBS. 4.—The active participles, admitting, allowing, considering, granting, speaking, supposing, and the like, are frequently used in discourse so independently, that they either relate to nothing, or to the pronoun I or we understood; as, "Granting this to be true, what is to be inferred from it?"—Murray's Gram., p. 195. This may be supposed to mean, "I, granting this to be true, ask what is to be inferred from it?" "The very chin was, modestly speaking, as long as my whole face."—Addison. Here the meaning may be, "I, modestly speaking, say." So of the following examples: "Properly speaking, there is no such thing as chance."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 172. "Because, generally speaking, the figurative sense of a word is derived from its proper sense."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 190. "But, admitting that two or three of these offend less in their morals than in their writings, must poverty make nonsense sacred?"—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 7. Some grammarians suppose such participles to be put absolute in themselves, so as to have no reference to any noun or pronoun; others, among whom are L. Murray and Dr. James P. Wilson, suppose them to be put absolute with a pronoun understood. On the former supposition, they form an other exception to the foregoing rule; on the latter, they do not: the participle relates to the pronoun, though both be independent of the rest of the sentence. If we supply the ellipsis as above, there is nothing put absolute.
OBS. 5.—Participles are almost always placed after the words on which their construction depends, and are distinguished from adjectives by this position; but when other words depend on the participle, or when several participles have the same construction, the whole phrase may come before the noun or pronoun: as, "Leaning my head upon my hand, I began to figure to myself the miseries of confinement."—Sterne.
"Immured in cypress shades, a sorcerer dwells."—Milton.
"Brib'd, bought, and bound, they banish shame and fear; Tell you they're stanch, and have a soul sincere."—Crabbe.
OBS. 6.—When participles are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb, they become adjectives; and, as such, they cannot govern an object after them. The following construction is therefore inaccurate: "When Caius did any thing unbecoming his dignity."—Jones's Church History, i, 87. "Costly and gaudy attire, unbecoming godliness."—Extracts, p. 185. Such errors are to be corrected by Note 15th to Rule 9th, or by changing the particle un to not: as, "Unbecoming to his dignity;" or, "Not becoming his dignity."
OBS. 7.—An imperfect or a preperfect participle, preceded by an article, an adjective, or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, becomes a verbal or participial noun; and, as such, it cannot with strict propriety, govern an object after it. A word which may be the object of the participle in its proper construction, requires the preposition of, to connect it with the verbal noun; as, 1. THE PARTICIPLE: "Worshiping idols, the Jews sinned."—"Thus worshiping idols,—In worshiping idols,—or, By worshiping idols, they sinned." 2. THE VERBAL NOUN: "The worshiping of idols,—Such worshiping of idols,—or, Their worshiping of idols, was sinful."—"In the worshiping of idols, there is sin."
OBS. 8.—It is commonly supposed that these two modes of expression are, in very many instances, equivalent to each other in meaning, and consequently interchangeable. How far they really are so, is a question to be considered. Example: "But if candour be a confounding of the distinctions between sin and holiness, a depreciating of the excellence of the latter, and at the same time a diminishing of the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."—The Friend, iv, 108. Here the nouns, distinctions, excellence, and evil, though governed by of, represent the objects of the forenamed actions; and therefore they might well be governed by confounding, depreciating, and diminishing, if these were participles. But if, to make them such, we remove the article and the preposition, the construction forsakes our meaning; for be confounding, (be) depreciating, and (be) diminishing, seem rather to be verbs of the compound form; and our uncertain nominatives after be, thus disappear in the shadow of a false sense. But some sensible critics tell us, that this preposition of should refer rather to the agent of the preceding action, than to its passive object; so that such a phrase as, "the teaching of boys," should signify rather the instruction which boys give, than that which they receive. If, for the sake of this principle, or for any other reason, we wish to avoid the foregoing phraseology, the meaning may be expressed thus: "But if your candour confound the distinctions between sin and holiness; if it depreciate the excellence of the latter, and at the same time diminish the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation."
OBS. 9.—When the use of the preposition produces ambiguity or harshness, let a better expression be sought. Thus the sentence, "He mentions Newton's writing of a commentary," is not entirely free from either of these faults. If the preposition be omitted, the word writing will have a double construction, which is inadmissible, or at least objectionable. Some would say, "He mentions Newton writing a commentary." This, though not uncommon, is still more objectionable because it makes the leading word in sense the adjunct in construction. The meaning may be correctly expressed thus: "He mentions that Newton wrote a commentary." "Mr. Dryden makes a very handsome observation on Ovid's writing a letter from Dido to Æneas."—Spect., No. 62; Campbell's Rhet., p. 265; Murray's Key, ii, 253. Here the word writing is partly a noun and partly a participle. If we make it wholly a noun, by saying, "on Ovid's writing of a letter," or wholly a participle, by saying, "on Ovid writing a letter;" it may be doubted, whether we have effected any improvement. And again, if we adopt Dr. Lowth's advice, "Let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction;" we must make some change; and therefore ought perhaps to say; "on Ovid's conceit of writing a letter from Dido to Æneas." This is apparently what Addison meant, and what Dryden remarked upon; the latter did not speak of the letter itself, else the former would have said, "on Ovid's letter from Dido to Æneas."
OBS. 10.—When a needless possessive, or a needless article, is put before the participle, the correction is to be made, not by inserting of, but by expunging the article, according to Note 16th to Rule 1st, or the possessive, according to Note 5th to Rule 4th. Example: "By his studying the Scriptures he became wise."—Lennie's Gram., p. 91. Here his serves only to render the sentence incorrect; yet this spurious example is presented by Lennie to prove that a participle may take the possessive case before it, when the preposition of is not admissible after it. So, in stead of expunging one useless word, our grammarians often add an other and call the twofold error a correction; as, "For his avoiding of that precipice, he is indebted to his friend's care."—Murray's Key, ii, 201. Or worse yet: "It was from our misunderstanding of the directions that we lost our way."—Ibid. Here, not our and of only, but four other words, are worse than useless. Again: "By the exercising of our judgment, it is improved. Or thus: By exercising our judgment, it is improved."—Comly's Key in his Gram., 12th Ed., p. 188. Each of these pretended corrections is wrong in more respects than one. Say, "By exercising our judgement, we improve it" Or, "Our judgement is improved by being exercised" Again: "The loving of our enemies is a divine command; Or, loving our enemies [is a divine command]."—Ibid. Both of these are also wrong. Say, "'Love your enemies,' is a divine command." Or, "We are divinely commanded to love our enemies." Some are apt to jumble together the active voice and the passive, and thus destroy the unity even of a short sentence; as, "By exercising our memories, they are improved."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 226 and 195. "The error might have been avoided by repeating the substantive."—Murray's Gram., p. 172. "By admitting such violations of established grammatical distinctions, confusion would be introduced."—Ib., p. 187. In these instances, we have an active participle without an agent; and this, by the preposition by, is made an adjunct to a passive verb. Even the participial noun of this form, though it actually drops the distinction of voice, is awkward and apparently incongruous in such a relation.
OBS. 11.—When the verbal noun necessarily retains any adjunct of the verb or participle, it seems proper that the two words be made a compound by means of the hyphen: as, "Their hope shall be as the giving-up of the ghost."—Job, xi, 20. "For if the casting-away of them be the reconciling of the world."—Rom., xi, 15. "And the gathering-together of the waters called he seas."—Gen., i, 10. "If he should offer to stop the runnings-out of his justice."—Law and Grace, p. 26. "The stopping-short before the usual pause in the melody, aids the impression that is made by the description of the stone's stopping-short.'"—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 106. I do not find these words united in the places referred to, but this is nevertheless their true figure. Our authors and printers are lamentably careless, as well as ignorant, respecting the figure of words: for which part of grammar, see the whole of the third chapter, in Part First of this work; also observations on the fourth rule of syntax, from the 30th to the 35th. As certain other compounds may sometimes be broken by tmesis, so may some of these; as, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is."—Heb., x, 23. Adverbs may relate to participles, but nouns require adjectives. The following phrase is therefore inaccurate: "For the more easily reading of large numbers." Yet if we say, "For reading large numbers the more easily," the construction is different, and not inaccurate. Some calculator, I think, has it, "For the more easily reading large numbers." But Hutton says, "For the more easy reading of large numbers."—Hutton's Arith., p. 5; so Babcock's, p. 12. It would be quite as well to say, "For the greater ease in reading large numbers."
OBS. 12.—Many words of a participial form are used directly as nouns, without any article, adjective, or possessive case before them, and without any object or adjunct after them. Such is commonly the construction of the words spelling, reading, writing, ciphering, surveying, drawing, parsing, and many other such names of actions or exercises. They are rightly put by Johnson among "nouns derived from verbs;" for, "The [name of the] action is the same with the participle present, as loving, frighting, fighting, striking."—Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 10. Thus: "I like writing."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 171. "He supposed, with them, that affirming and denying were operations of the mind."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 35. "'Not rendering,' said Polycarp the disciple of John, 'evil for evil, or railing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for cursing."—Dymond, on War. Against this practice, there is seldom any objection; the words are wholly nouns, both in sense and construction. We call them participial nouns, only because they resemble participles in their derivation; or if we call them verbal nouns, it is because they are derived from verbs. But we too frequently find those which retain the government and the adjuncts of participles, used as nouns before or after verbs; or, more properly speaking, used as mongrels and nondescripts, a doubtful species, for which there is seldom any necessity, since the infinitive, the verbal or some other noun, or a clause introduced by the conjunction that, will generally express the idea in a better manner: as, "Exciting such disturbances, is unlawful." Say rather, "To excite such disturbances,—The exciting of such disturbances,—The excitation of such disturbances,—or, That one should excite such disturbances, is unlawful."
OBS. 13.—Murray says, "The word the, before the active participle, in the following sentence, and in all others of a similar construction, is improper, and should be omitted: 'The advising, or the attempting, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful.' It should be, 'Advising or attempting to excite disturbances.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 195. But, by his own showing, "the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive."—Ib., p. 192. And substantives, or nouns, by an other of his notes, can govern the infinitive mood, just as well as participles; or just as well as the verbs which he thinks would be very proper here; namely, "To advise or attempt to excite such disturbances."—Ib., p. 196. It would be right to say, "Any advice, or attempt, to excite such disturbances, is unlawful." And I see not that he has improved the text at all, by expunging the article. Advising and attempting, being disjunct nominatives to is, are nothing but nouns, whether the article be used or not; though they are rather less obviously such without it, and therefore the change is for the worse.
OBS. 14.—Lennie observes, "When a preposition"—(he should have said, When an other preposition—) "follows the participle, of is inadmissible; as, His depending on promises proved his ruin. His neglecting to study when young, rendered him ignorant all his life."—Prin. of E. Gram., 5th Ed., p. 65; 13th Ed., 91. Here on and to, of course, exclude of; but the latter may be changed to of, which will turn the infinitive into a noun: as, "His neglecting of study," &c. "Depending" and "neglecting," being equivalent to dependence and neglect, are participial nouns, and not "participles." Professor Bullions, too, has the same faulty remark, examples and all; (for his book, of the same title, is little else than a gross plagiarism from Lennie's;) though he here forgets his other erroneous doctrines, that, "A preposition should never be used before the infinitive," and that, "Active verbs do not admit a preposition after them." See Bullions's Prin. of E. Gram., pp. 91, 92, and 107.
OBS. 15.—The participle in ing is, on many occasions, equivalent to the infinitive verb, so that the speaker or writer may adopt either, just as he pleases: as, "So their gerunds are sometimes found having [or to have] an absolute or apparently neuter signification."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 234. "With tears that ceas'd not flowing" [or to flow].—Milton. "I would willingly have him producing [produce, or to produce] his credentials."—Barclay's Works, iii, 273. There are also instances, and according to my notion not a few, in which the one is put improperly for the other. The participle however is erroneously used for the infinitive much oftener than the infinitive for the participle. The lawful uses of both are exceedingly numerous; though the syntax of the participle, strictly speaking, does not include its various conversions into other parts of speech. The principal instances of regular equivalence between infinitives and participles, may be reduced to the following heads:
1. After the verbs see, hear, and feel, the participle in ing, relating to the objective, is often equivalent to the infinitive governed by the verb; as, "I saw him running"—"I heard it howling."—W. Allen. "I feel the wind blowing." Here the verbs, run, howl, and blow, might be substituted. 2. After intransitive verbs signifying to begin or to continue, the participle in ing, relating to the nominative, may be used in stead of the infinitive connected to the verb; as, "The ass began galloping with all his might."—Sandford and Merton. "It commenced raining very hard."—Silliman. "The steamboats commenced running on Saturday."—Daily Advertiser. "It is now above three years since he began printing."—Dr. Adam's Pref. to Rom. Antiq. "So when they continued asking him."—John, viii, 7. Greek, "[Greek: Os epemenon erotontes auton.]" Latin, "Cum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum."—Vulgate. "Cùm autem perseverarent eum interrogare."—Beza. "Then shall ye continue following the Lord your God."—1 Sam., xii, 14. "Eritis sequentes Dominum Deum vestrum."—Vulgate. "As she continued praying before the Lord."—1 Sam., i, 12. "Cùm ilia multiplicaret preces coram Domino."—Vulgate. "And they went on beating down one an other."—2 Sam., xiv, 16. "Make the members of them go on rising and growing in their importance."—Blair's Rhet., p. 116. "Why do you keep teasing me?"
3. After for, in, of, or to, and perhaps some other prepositions, the participle may in most cases be varied by the infinitive, which is governed by to only; as, "We are better fitted for receiving the tenets and obeying the precepts of that faith which will make us wise unto salvation."—West's Letters, p. 51. That is—"to receive the tenets and obey the precepts." "Men fit for fighting, practised in fighting, proud of fighting, accustomed to fighting."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 172. That is, "fit to fight," &c. "What is the right path, few take the trouble of inquiring."—Murray's Key, 8vo. ii, 235. Better, perhaps:—"few take the trouble to inquire."
OBS. 16.—One of our best grammarians says, "The infinitive, in the following sentences, should be exchanged for the participle: 'I am weary to bear them.' Is. i, 14. 'Hast thou, spirit, perform'd to point the tempest?' Shak."—Allen's Gram., p. 172. This suggestion implies, that the participle would be here not only equivalent to the infinitive in sense, but better in expression. It is true, the preposition to does not well express the relation between weary and bear; and, doubtless, some regard should be had to the meaning of this particle, whenever it is any thing more than an index of the mood. But the critic ought to have told us how he would make these corrections. For in neither case does the participle alone appear to be a fit substitute for the infinitive, either with or without the to; and the latter text will scarcely bear the participle at all, unless we change the former verb; as, "Hast thou, spirit, done pointing the tempest?" The true meaning of the other example seems somewhat uncertain. The Vulgate has it, "Laboravi sustinens," "I have laboured bearing them;" the French Bible, "Je suis las de les souffrir," "I am tired of bearing them;" the Septuagint, "[Greek: Ouketi anæso tas hamartias humon,]" "I will no more forgive your sins."
OBS. 17.—In the following text, the infinitive is used improperly, nor would the participle in its stead make pure English: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, to have been continually before me."—Ps. 1. 8. According to the French version, "to have been" should be "which are;" but the Septuagint and the Vulgate take the preceding noun for the nominative, thus: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, but thy burnt-offerings are continually before me."
OBS. 18.—As the preposition to before the infinitive shows the latter to be "that towards which the preceding verb is directed," verbs of desisting, omitting, preventing, and avoiding, are generally found to take the participle after them, and not the infinitive; because, in such instances, the direction of effort seems not to be so properly to, or towards, as from the action.[419] Where the preposition from is inserted, (as it most commonly is, after some of these verbs.) there is no irregularity in the construction of the participle; but where the participle immediately follows the verb, it is perhaps questionable whether it ought to be considered the object of the verb, or a mere participle relating to the nominative which precedes. If we suppose the latter, the participle may be parsed by the common rule; if the former, it must be referred to the third exception above. For example:
1. After verbs of DESISTING; as, "The Cryer used to proclaim, DIXERUNT, i. e. They have done speaking."—Harris's Hermes, p. 132. "A friend is advised to put off making love to Lalage."—Philological Museum, i, 446. "He forbore doing so, on the ground of expediency."—The Friend, iv, 35. "And yet architects never give over attempting to reconcile these two incompatibles."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 338. "Never to give over seeking and praying for it."—N. Y. Observer. "Do not leave off seeking."—President Edwards. "Then Satan hath done flattering and comforting."—Baxter. "The princes refrained talking."—Job, xxix, 9. "Principes cessabant loqui."—Vulgate. Here it would be better to say, "The princes refrained from talking." But Murray says, "From seems to be superfluous after forbear: as, 'He could not forbear from appointing the pope,' &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 203. But "forbear to appoint" would be a better correction; for this verb is often followed by the infinitive; as, "Forbear to insinuate."—West's Letters, p. 62. "And he forbare to go forth."—1 Sam., xxiii, 13. The reader will observe, that, "never to give over" or "not to leave off," is in fact the same thing as to continue; and I have shown by the analogy of other languages, that after verbs of continuing the participle is not an object of government; though possibly it may be so, in these instances, which are somewhat different. 2. After verbs of OMITTING; as, "He omits giving an account of them."—Tooke's Diversions of Purley, i, 251. I question the propriety of this construction; and yet, "omits to give" seems still more objectionable. Better, "He omits all account of them." Or, "He neglects to give, or forbears to give, any account of them." L. Murray twice speaks of apologizing, "for the use he has made of his predecessors' labours, and for omitting to insert their names."—Octavo Gram., Pref., p. vii; and Note, p. 73. The phrase, "omitting to insert," appears to me a downright solecism; and the pronoun their is ambiguous, because there are well-known names both for the men and for their labours, and he ought not to have omitted either species wholly, as he did. "Yet they absolutely refuse doing so, one with another."—Harris's Hermes, p. 264. Better, "refuse to do so." "I had as repeatedly declined going."—Leigh Hunt's Byron, p. 15.
3. After verbs of PREVENTING; as, "Our sex are happily prevented from engaging in these turbulent scenes."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 74. "To prevent our frail natures from deviating into bye paths [write by-paths] of error."—Ib., p. 100. "Prudence, prevents our speaking or acting improperly."—Blair's Rhet., p. 99; Murray's Gram., p. 303; Jamieson's Rhet., p. 72. This construction, though very common, is palpably wrong: because its most natural interpretation is, "Prudence improperly prevents our speech or action." These critics ought to have known enough to say, "Prudence prevents us from speaking or acting improperly." "This, however, doth not hinder pronunciation to borrow from singing."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 70. Here the infinitive is used, merely because it does not sound well to say, "from borrowing from singing;" but the expression might very well be changed thus, "from being indebted to singing." "'This by no means hinders the book to be a useful one.'—Geddes. It should be, 'from being.'"—Churchill's Gram., p. 318.
4. After verbs of AVOIDING: as, "He might have avoided treating of the origin of ideas."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 28. "We may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 281. "But carefully avoid being at any time ostentatious and affected."—Blair's Rhet., p. 233. "Here I cannot avoid mentioning[420] the assistance I have received."—Churchill's Gram., p. iv. "It is our duty to avoid leading others into temptation,"—West's Letters, p. 33. "Nay, such a garden should in some measure avoid imitating nature."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 251. "I can promise no entertainment to those who shun thinking."—Ib., i, 36. "We cannot help being of opinion."—ENCYC. BRIT. Murray's Gram., p. 76. "I cannot help being of opinion."—Blair's Rhet., p. 311. "I cannot help mentioning here one character more."—Hughes. Spect., No. 554. "These would sometimes very narrowly miss being catched away."—Steele. "Carleton very narrowly escaped being taken."—Grimshaw's Hist., p. 111. Better, "escaped from being taken;"—or, "escaped capture."