The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 701Footnotes: (13)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
[400] Two singulars connected by and, when they form a part of such a disjunction, are still equivalent to a plural; and are to be treated as such, in the syntax of the verb. Hence the following construction appears to be inaccurate: "A single consonant or a mute and a liquid before an accented vowel, is joined to that vowel"—Dr. Bullions, Lat. Gram. p. xi.
[401] Murray the schoolmaster has it, "used to govern."—English Gram., p. 64. He puts the verb in a wrong tense. Dr. Bullions has it, "usually governs."—Lat. Gram., p. 202. This is right.—G. B.
[402] The two verbs to sit and to set are in general quite different in their meaning; but the passive verb to be set sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter. Hence, we not only find the Latin word sedeo, to sit, used in the sense of being set, as, "Ingens coena sedet," "A huge supper is set," Juv., 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used is set, was set, &c., with reference to the personal posture of sitting. This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. "Set," says the Doctor, "can be no part of the verb to sit. If it belong to the verb to set, the translation in these passages is wrong. For to set, signifies to place, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance, expressed by the original."—Lowth's Gram., p. 53; Churchill's, 265. These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them—except that they prefer sitten to sat, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete. If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate. In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, "am set," and by Beza, "sedeo;" though Montanus and the Vulgate render it literally by "sedi," as I do by sat. See Key to False Syntax, Rule XVII, Note xii.
[403] Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek: to], the, and the English or Saxon verb do, to be equivalent or kindred words. But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally. The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify do, with [Greek: to], the, has discovered synonymes [sic—KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers: as, "It and the," says he, "when Gender is not attended to, are synonymous. Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to bring forth, or to add to what we already see. The, it, and, add, at, to, and do, are kindred words. They mark that an addition is made to some collected mass of existence. To, which literally signifies add, (like at and the Latin ad,) is merely a different pronunciation of do. It expresses the junction of an other thing, or circumstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of too."—Introd. to Analyt. Dict., p. 45. Horne Tooke, it seems, could not persuade this author into his notion of the derivation and meaning of the, it, to, or do. But Lindley Murray, and his followers, have been more tractable. They were ready to be led without looking. "To," say they, "comes from Saxon and Gothic words, which signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 183; Fisk's, 92. What an admirable explanation is this! and how prettily the great Compiler says on the next leaf: "Etymology, when it is guided by judgment, and [when] proper limits are set to it, certainly merits great attention!"—Ib., p. 135. According to his own express rules for interpreting "a substantive without any article to limit it" and the "relative pronoun with a comma before it," he must have meant, that "to comes from Saxon and Gothic words" of every sort, and that the words of these two languages "signify action, effect, termination, to act, &c." The latter assertion is true enough: but, concerning the former, a man of sense may demur. Nor do I see how it is possible not to despise such etymology, be the interpretation of the words what it may. For, if to means action or to act, then our little infinitive phrase, to be, must mean, action be, or to act be; and what is this, but nonsense?
[404] So, from the following language of three modern authors, one cannot but infer, that they would parse the verb as governed by the preposition; but I do not perceive that they anywhere expressly say so:
(1.) "The Infinitive is the form of the supplemental verb that always has, or admits, the preposition TO before it; as, to move. Its general character is to represent the action in prospect, or to do; or in retrospect, as to have done. As a verb, it signifies to do the action; and as object of the preposition TO, it stands in the place of a noun for the doing of it. The infinitive verb and its prefix to are used much like a preposition and its noun object."—Felch's Comprehensive Gram., p. 62.
(2.) "The action or other signification of a verb may be expressed in its widest and most general sense, without any limitation by a person or agent, but merely as the end or purpose of some other action, state of being, quality, or thing; it is, from this want of limitation, said to be in the Infinitive mode; and is expressed by the verb with the preposition TO before it, to denote this relation of end or purpose; as, 'He came to see me;' 'The man is not fit die;' 'It was not right for him to do thus.'"—Dr. S. Webber's English Gram., p. 35.
(3.) "RULE 3. A verb in the Infinitive Mode, is the object of the preposition TO, expressed or understood."—S. W. Clark's Practical Gram., p. 127.
[405] Rufus Nutting, A. M., a grammarian of some skill, supposes that in all such sentences there was "anciently" an ellipsis, not of the phrase "in order to," but of the preposition for. He says, "Considering this mode as merely a verbal noun, it might be observed, that the infinitive, when it expresses the object, is governed by a transitive verb; and, when it expresses the final cause, is governed by an intransitive verb, OR ANCIENTLY, BY A PREPOSITION UNDERSTOOD. Of the former kind—'he learns to read.' Of the latter—'he reads to learn,' i. e. 'for to learn.'"—Practical Gram., p. 101. If for was anciently understood in examples of this sort, it is understood now, and to a still greater extent; because we do not now insert the word for, as our ancestors sometimes did; and an ellipsis can no otherwise grow obsolete, than by a continual use of what was once occasionally omitted.
[406] (1.) "La préposition, est un mot indéclinable, placé devant les noms, les pronoms, et les verbes, qu'elle régit."—"The preposition is an indeclinable word placed before the nouns, pronouns, and verbs which it governs."—Perrin's Grammar, p. 152.
(2.) "Every verb placed immediately after an other verb, or after a preposition, ought to be put in the infinitive; because it is then the regimen of the verb or preposition which precedes."—See La Grammaire des Grammaires, par Girault Du Vivier, p. 774.
(3.) The American translator of the Elements of General Grammar, by the Baron De Sacy, is naturally led, in giving a version of his author's method of analysis, to parse the English infinitive mood essentially as I do; calling the word to a preposition, and the exponent, or sign, of a relation between the verb which follows it, and some other word which is antecedent to it. Thus, in the phrase, "commanding them to use his power," he says, that "'to' [is the] Exponent of a relation whose Antecedent is 'commanding,' and [whose] Consequent [is] 'use.'"—Fosdick's De Sacy, p. 131. In short, he expounds the word to in this relation, just as he does when it stands before the objective case. For example, in the phrase, "belonging to him alone: 'to,' Exponent of a relation of which the Antecedent is 'belonging,' and the Consequent, 'him alone.'"—Ib., p. 126. My solution, in either case, differs from this in scarcely any thing else than the choice of words to express it.
(4.) It appears that, in sundry dialects of the north of Europe, the preposition at has been preferred for the governing of the infinitive: "The use of at for to, as the sign of the infinitive mode, is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day."—Fowler, on the English Language, 8vo, 1850, p. 46.
[407] Here is a literal version, in which two infinitives are governed by the preposition between; and though such a construction is uncommon, I know not why it should be thought less accurate in the one language than in the other. In some exceptive phrases, also, it seems not improper to put the infinitive after some other preposition than to; as, "What can she do besides sing?"—"What has she done, except rock herself?" But such expressions, if allowable, are too unfrequent to be noticed in any general Rule of syntax. In the following example, the word of pretty evidently governs the infinitive: "Intemperance characterizes our discussions, that is calculated to embitter in stead of conciliate."—CINCINNATI HERALD: Liberator, No. 986.
[408] This doctrine has been lately revived in English by William B. Fowle, who quotes Dr. Rees, Beauzée, Harris, Tracy, and Crombie, as his authorities for it. He is right in supposing the English infinitive to be generally governed by the preposition to, but wrong in calling it a noun, or "the name of the verb," except this phrase be used in the sense in which every verb may be the name of itself. It is an error too, to suppose with Beauzée, "that the infinitive never in any language refers to a subject or nominative;" or, as Harris has it, that infinitives "have no reference at all to persons or substances." See Fowle's True English Gram., Part ii, pp. 74 and 75. For though the infinitive verb never agrees with a subject or nominative, like a finite verb, it most commonly has a very obvious reference to something which is the subject of the being, action, or passion, which it expresses; and this reference is one of the chief points of difference between the infinitive and a noun. S. S. Greene, in a recent grammar, absurdly parses infinitives "as nouns," and by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them verbs. Thus: "Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained, is a regular passive VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is used as a NOUN in the relation of predicate; according to Rule II. A noun or pronoun used with the copula to form the predicate, must be in the nominative case."—Greene's Gram., 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This author admits, "The 'to' seems, like the preposition, to perform the office of a connective:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The infinitive differs from the preposition and its object, in that the 'to' is the only preposition used with the verb." And so he concludes, "The two [or more] parts of the infinitive are taken together, and, thus combined, may become a NOUN in any relation."—Ib., 1st Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb before it transitive; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the direct object of a transitive verb is the infinitive; as, 'We intend (What?) to leave [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) to conceal their fears.'"—Ib., p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents: "It is our purpose to leave town to-day."—"They endeavoured to conceal their fears." Or in this:—"They blustered to conceal their fears."
[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus: "Tò, or To, ad. A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed a syllable of the verb. It is used merely as a sign of the infinitive, without having any distinct or separate meaning: as, 'He loves to read.'"—Univ. and Crit. Dict. Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by "read" is "that towards which" the affection signified by "loves" is directed? It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this to, that its meaning is not readily seen. For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or analogy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a part of the verb."
[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at variance, so there seems to be none on which they are more at fault, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, to. For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be classed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine. Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.
(1.) "What is the meaning of the word to? Ans. To means act. NOTE.—As our verbs and nouns are spelled in the same manner, it was formerly thought best to prefix the word TO, to words when used as verbs. For there is no difference between the NOUN, love; and the VERB, to love; but what is shown by the prefix TO, which signifies act; i. e. to act love."—R. W. Greene's Inductive Exercises in English Grammar, N. Y., 1829, p. 52. Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. To no more "means act," than from "means act." And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, "act love," is imperative, and makes the word "love" a noun; and so, "to act love," (where "love" is also a noun,) must mean "act act love," which is tautological nonsense. Our nouns and verbs are not, in general, spelled alike; nor are the latter, in general, preceded by to; nor could a particle which may govern either, have been specifically intended, at first, to mark their difference. By some, as we have seen, it is argued from the very sign, that the infinitive is always essentially a noun.
(2.) "The infinitive mode is the root or simple form of the verb, used to express an action or state indefinitely; as, to hear, to speak. It is generally distinguished by the sign to. When the particle to is employed in forming the infinitive, it is to be regarded as a part of the verb. In every other case it is a preposition."—Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed., p. 80. "A Preposition is a word which is used to express the relation of a noun or pronoun depending upon it, to some other word in the sentence."—Ib., pp. 46 and 108. "The passive form of a verb is sometimes used in connection with a preposition, forming a compound passive verb. Examples:—'He was listened to without a murmur.'—A. H. EVERETT. 'Nor is this enterprise to be scoffed at.'—CHANNING."—Ib., p. 146. "A verb in the infinitive usually relates to some noun or pronoun. Thus, in the sentence, 'He desires to improve,' the verb to improve relates to the pronoun he while it is governed by desires."—Ib., p. 150. "'The agent to a verb in the infinitive mode must be in the objective case.'—NUTTING."—Ib., p. 148. These citations from Wells, the last of which he quotes approvingly, by way of authority, are in many respects self-contradictory, and in nearly all respects untrue. How can the infinitive be only "the root or simple form of the verb," and yet consist "generally" of two distinct words, and often of three, four, or five; as, "to hear,"—"to have heard,"—"to be listened to,"—"to have been listened to?" How can to be a "preposition" in the phrase, "He was listened to," and not so at all in "to be listened to?" How does the infinitive "express an action or state indefinitely," if it "usually relates to some noun or pronoun?" Why must its agent "be in the objective case," if "to improve relates to the pronoun he?" Is to "in every other case a preposition," and not such before a verb or a participle? Must every preposition govern some "noun or pronoun?" And yet are there some prepositions which govern nothing, precede nothing? "The door banged to behind him."—BLACKWELL: Prose Edda, §2. What is to here?
(3.) "The preposition TO before a verb is the sign of the Infinitive."—Weld's E. Gram., 2d Ed., p. 74. "The preposition is a part of speech used to connect words, and show their relation."—Ib., p. 42. "The perfect infinitive is formed of the perfect participle and the auxiliary HAVE preceded by the preposition TO."—Ib., p. 96. "The infinitive mode follows a verb, noun, or adjective."—Ib., pp. 75 and 166. "A verb in the Infinitive may follow: 1. Verbs or participles; 2. Nouns or pronouns; 3. Adjectives; 4. As or than; 5. Adverbs; 6. Prepositions; 7. The Infinitive is often used independently; 8. The Infinitive mode is often used in the office of a verbal noun, as the nominative case to the verb, and as the objective case after verbs and prepositions."—Ib., p. 167. These last two counts are absurdly included among what "the Infinitive may follow;" and is it not rather queer, that this mood should be found to "follow" every thing else, and not "the preposition TO," which comes "before" it, and by which it is "preceded?" This author adopts also the following absurd and needless rule: "The Infinitive mode has an objective case before it when [the word] THAT is omitted: as, I believe the sun to be the centre of the solar system; I know him to be a man of veracity."—Ib., p. 167; Abridged Ed., 124. (See Obs. 10th on Rule 2d, above.) "Sun" is here governed by "believe;" and "him," by "know;" and "be," in both instances, by "the preposition TO:" for this particle is not only "the sign of the Infinitive," but its governing word, answering well to the definition of a preposition above cited from Weld.
[411] "The infinitive is sometimes governed by a preposition; as, 'The shipmen were about to flee.'"—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 149; 3d Ed., p. 158. Wells has altered this, and for "preposition" put "adverb."—Ed. of 1850, p. 163.
[412] Some grammatists, being predetermined that no preposition shall control the infinitive, avoid the conclusion by absurdly calling FOR, a conjunction; ABOUT, an adverb; and TO—no matter what—but generally, nothing. Thus: "The conjunction FOR, is inelegantly used before verbs in the infinitive mood; as, 'He came for to study Latin.'"—Greenleaf's Gram., p. 38. "The infinitive mood is sometimes governed by conjunctions or adverbs; as, 'An object so high as to be invisible;' 'The army is about to march.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 188. This is a note to that extra rule which Kirkham proposes for our use, "if we reject the idea of government, as applied to the verb in this mood!"—Ib.
[413] After the word "fare," Murray put a semicolon, which shows that he misunderstood the mood of the verb "hear." It is not always necessary to repeat the particle to, when two or more infinitives are connected; and this fact is an other good argument against calling the preposition to "a part of the verb." But in this example, and some others here exhibited, the repetition is requisite.—G. B.
[414] "The Infinitive Mood is not confined to a trunk or nominative, and is always preceded by to, expressed or implied."—S. Barrett's Gram., 1854, p. 43.
[415] Lindley Murray, and several of his pretended improvers, say, "The infinitive sometimes follows the word AS: thus, 'An object so high as to be invisible.' The infinitive occasionally follows THAN after a comparison; as, 'He desired nothing more than to know his own imperfections.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 184; Fisk's, 125; Alger's, 63; Merchant's, 92. See this second example in Weld's Gram., p. 167; Abridg., 124. Merchant, not relishing the latter example, changes it thus: "I wish nothing more, than to know his fate." He puts a comma after more, and probably means, "I wish nothing else than to know his fate." So does Fisk, in the other version: and probably means, "He desired nothing else than to know his own imperfections." But Murray, Alger, and Weld, accord in punctuation, and their meaning seems rather to be, "He desired nothing more heartily than [he desired] to know his own imperfections." And so is this or a similar text interpreted by both Ingersoll and Weld, who suppose this infinitive to be "governed by another verb, understood: as, 'He desired nothing more than to see his friends;' that is, 'than he desired to see,' &c."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 244; Weld's Abridged, 124. But obvious as is the ambiguity of this fictitious example, in all its forms, not one of these five critics perceived the fault at all. Again, in their remark above cited, Ingersoll, Fisk, and Merchant, put a comma before the preposition "after," and thus make the phrase, "after a comparison," describe the place of the infinitive. But Murray and Alger probably meant that this phrase should denote the place of the conjunction "than." The great "Compiler" seems to me to have misused the phrase "a comparison," for, "an adjective or adverb of the comparative degree;" and the rest, I suppose, have blindly copied him, without thinking or knowing what he ought to have said, or meant to say. Either this, or a worse error, is here apparent. Five learned grammarians severally represent either "than" or "the infinitive," as being AFTER "a comparison;" of which one is the copula, and the other but the beginning of the latter term! Palpable as is the absurdity, no one of the five perceives it! And, besides, no one of them says any thing about the government of this infinitive, except Ingersoll, and he supplies a verb. "Than and as," says Greenleaf, "sometimes appear to govern the infinitive mood; as, 'Nothing makes a man suspect much more, than to know little;' 'An object so high as to be invisible."—Gram. Simp., p. 38. Here is an other fictitious and ambiguous example, in which the phrase, "to know little," is the subject of makes understood. Nixon supposes the infinitive phrase after as to be always the subject of a finite verb understood after it; as, "An object so high as to be invisible is or, implies." See English Parser, p. 100.
[416] Dr. Crombie, after copying the substance of Campbell's second Canon, that, "In doubtful cases analogy should be regarded," remarks: "For the same reason, 'it needs' and 'he dares,' are better than 'he need' and 'he dare.'"—On Etym. and Synt., p. 326. Dr. Campbell's language is somewhat stronger: "In the verbs to dare and to need, many say, in the third person present singular, dare and need, as 'he need not go: he dare not do it.' Others say, dares and needs. As the first usage is exceedingly irregular, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorize it."—Philosophy of Rhet., p. 175. Dare for dares I suppose to be wrong; but if need is an auxiliary of the potential mood, to use it without inflection, is neither "irregular," nor at all inconsistent with the foregoing canon. But the former critic notices these verbs a second time, thus: "'He dare not,' 'he need not,' may be justly pronounced solecisms, for 'he dares,' 'he needs.'"—Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 378. He also says, "The verbs bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, let, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive."—Ib., p. 277. And yet he writes thus: "These are truths, of which, I am persuaded, the author, to whom I allude, needs not to be reminded."—Ib., p. 123. So Dr. Bullions declares against need in the singular, by putting down the following example as bad English: "He need not be in so much haste."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 134. Yet he himself writes thus: "A name more appropriate than the term neuter, need not be desired."—Ib., p. 196. A school-boy may see the inconsistency of this.
[417] Some modern grammarians will have it, that a participle governed by a preposition is a "participial noun;" and yet, when they come to parse an adverb or an objective following, their "noun" becomes a "participle" again, and not a "noun." To allow words thus to dodge from one class to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hurt, Weld, Wells, and S. S. Greene.
[418] Dr. Blair, to whom Murray ought to have acknowledged himself indebted for this sentence, introduced a noun, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer: thus, "It is disagreeable for the mind to be left pausing on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea."—Blair's Rhetoric, p. 118. See Obs. 10th and 11th on Rule 14th.
[419] The perfect contrast between from and to, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this to is the common preposition to. For example, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth."—Zech., vi, 5. Now if this were rendered "which go forth to stand," &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations. Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, "going forth to stand;" and the Latin, "which go forth, that they may stand;" while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,—"which go forth from the place where they stood."
[420] Cannot, with a verb of avoiding, or with the negative but, is equivalent to must. Such examples may therefore be varied thus: "I cannot but mention:" i.e., "I must mention."—"I cannot help exhorting him to assume courage."—Knox. That is, "I cannot but exhort him."
[421] See the same thing in Kirkham's Gram. p. 189; in Ingersoll's, p. 200; in Smith's New Grammar, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray's work. Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, "Participles frequently govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case; as, 'In case of his majesty's dying without issue, &c.; Upon God's having ended all his works, &c.; I remember its being reckoned a great exploit; At my coming in he said, &c."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 181. None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy. Better: "In case his Majesty die without issue."—"God having ended all his works."—"I remember it was reckoned a great exploit."—"At my entrance, he said," &c.
[422] We have seen that Priestley's doctrine, as well as Lowth's, is, that when a participle is taken substantively, "it ought not to govern another word;" and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an adverb relating to it. But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their "participial nouns" to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects. For example: Because one may say, "To read superficially, is useless," Barnard supposes it right to say, "Reading superficially is useless." "But the participle," says he, "will also take the adjective; as, 'Superficial reading is useless.'"—Analytic Gram., p. 212. In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected. Again, this author says: "We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a noun. What shall be said of the following? 'Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of a man's accomplishing a task so stupendous.' The entire clause following man's, is taken as a noun. 'Of a man's success in a task so stupendous.' would present no difficulty. A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, thus often stands for a noun. 'My going will depend on my father's giving his consent,' or 'on my father's consenting.' A participle thus used as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN."—Ib., p. 131. I dislike this doctrine also. In the first example, man may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus: "There has been no instance of a man accomplishing a task so stupendous." It is also proper to say. "My going will depend on my father's consenting," or, "on my father's consent." But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive. If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert of: thus, "There has been no instance of a man's accomplishing of a task so stupendous." "My going will depend on my father's giving of his consent."—"My brother's acquiring [of] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels."—Barnard's Gram., p. 227. If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, "A superficial reading books is useless?" Again, Barnard approves of the question, "What do you think of my horse's running to-day?" and adds, "Between this form of expression and the following, 'What do you think of my horse running to-day?' it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. The difference of meaning certainly exists; but it would seem more judicious to treat the latter as an improper mode of speaking. What can be more uncouth than to say, 'What do you think of me going to Niagara?' We should say my going, notwithstanding the ambiguity. We ought, therefore, to introduce something explanatory; as, 'What do you think of the propriety of my going to Niagara?"—Analytic Gram., p. 227. The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley's distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity. Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle.