Читать книгу The Grammar of English Grammars - Goold Brown - Страница 280

OBS. 1.—The pronouns I and myself, thou and thyself, with their inflections, are literally applicable to persons only; but, figuratively, they represent brutes, or whatever else the human imagination invests with speech and reason. The latter use of them, though literal perhaps in every thing but person, constitutes the purest kind of personification. For example: "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them: and they said unto the olive-tree, 'Reign thou over us.' But the olive-tree said unto them, 'Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?'" See Judges, ix, from 8 to 16.

OBS. 2.—The pronouns he and himself, she and herself, with their inflections, are literally applicable to persons and to brutes, and to these only; if applied to lifeless objects, they animate them, and are figurative in gender, though literal perhaps in every other respect. For example: "A diamond of beauty and lustre, observing at his side in the same cabinet, not only many other gems, but even a loadstone, began to question the latter how he came there—he, who appeared to be no better than a mere flint, a sorry rusty-looking pebble, without the least shining quality to advance him to such honour; and concluded with desiring him to keep his distance, and to pay a proper respect to his superiors."—Kames's Art of Thinking, p. 226.

OBS. 3.—The pronoun it, as it carries in itself no such idea as that of personality, or sex, or life, is chiefly used with reference to things inanimate; yet the word is, in a certain way, applicable to animals, or even to persons; though it does not, in itself, present them as such. Thus we say, "It is I;"—"It was they;"—"It was you;"—"It was your agent;"—"It is your bull that has killed one of my oxen." In examples of this kind, the word it is simply demonstrative; meaning, the thing or subject spoken of. That subject, whatever it be in itself, may be introduced again after the verb, in any person, number, or gender, that suits it. But, as the verb agrees with the pronoun it, the word which follows, can in no sense be made, as Dr. Priestley will have it to be, the antecedent to that pronoun. Besides, it is contrary to the nature of what is primarily demonstrative, to represent a preceding word of any kind. The Doctor absurdly says, "Not only things, but persons, may be the antecedent to this pronoun; as, Who is it? Is it not Thomas? i.e. Who is the person? Is not he Thomas?"—Priestley's Gram., p. 85. In these examples, the terms are transposed by interrogation; but that circumstance, though it may have helped to deceive this author and his copiers, affects not my assertion.

OBS. 4.—The pronoun who is usually applied only to persons. Its application to brutes or to things is improper, unless we mean to personify them. But whose, the possessive case of this relative, is sometimes used to supply the place of the possessive case, otherwise wanting, to the relative which. Examples: "The mutes are those consonants whose sounds cannot be protracted."—Murray's Gram., p. 9. "Philosophy, whose end is, to instruct us in the knowledge of nature."—Ib., p. 54; Campbell's Rhet., 421. "Those adverbs are compared whose primitives are obsolete."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 150. "After a sentence whose sense is complete in itself, a period is used."—Nutting's Gram., p. 124. "We remember best those things whose parts are methodically disposed, and mutually connected."—Beattie's Moral Science, i, 59. "Is there any other doctrine whose followers are punished?"—ADDISON: Murray's Gram., p. 54; Lowth's, p. 25.

"The question, whose solution I require, Is, what the sex of women most desire."—DRYDEN: Lowth, p. 25.

OBS. 5.—Buchanan, as well as Lowth, condemns the foregoing use of whose, except in grave poetry: saying, "This manner of personification adds an air of dignity to the higher and more solemn kind of poetry, but it is highly improper in the lower kind, or in prose."—Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 73. And, of the last two examples above quoted, he says, "It ought to be of which, in both places: i.e. The followers of which; the solution of which."—Ib., p. 73. The truth is, that no personification is here intended. Hence it may be better to avoid, if we can, this use of whose, as seeming to imply what we do not mean. But Buchanan himself (stealing the text of an older author) has furnished at least one example as objectionable as any of the foregoing: "Prepositions are naturally placed betwixt the Words whose Relation and Dependence each of them is to express."—English Syntax, p. 90; British Gram., p. 201. I dislike this construction, and yet sometimes adopt it, for want of another as good. It is too much, to say with Churchill, that "this practice is now discountenanced by all correct writers."—New Gram., p. 226. Grammarians would perhaps differ less, if they would read more. Dr. Campbell commends the use of whose for of which, as an improvement suggested by good taste, and established by abundant authority. See Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 420. "WHOSE, the possessive or genitive case of who or which; applied to persons or things."—Webster's Octavo Dict. "Whose is well authorized by good usage, as the possessive of which."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 69. "Nor is any language complete, whose verbs have not tenses."—Harris's Hermes.

"————'Past and future, are the wings

On whose support, harmoniously conjoined, Moves the great spirit of human knowledge.'—MS." Wordsworth's Preface to his Poems, p. xviii.

OBS. 6.—The relative which, though formerly applied to persons and made equivalent to who, is now confined to brute animals and inanimate things. Thus, "Our Father which art in heaven," is not now reckoned good English; it should be, "Our Father who art in heaven." In this, as well as in many other things, the custom of speech has changed; so that what was once right, is now ungrammatical. The use of which for who is very common in the Bible, and in other books of the seventeenth century; but all good writers now avoid the construction. It occurs seventy-five times in the third chapter of Luke; as, "Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat," etc. etc. After a personal term taken by metonymy for a thing, which is not improper; as, "Of the particular author which he is studying."—Gallaudet. And as an interrogative or a demonstrative pronoun or adjective, the word which is still applicable to persons, as formerly; as, "Which of you all?"—"Which man of you all?"—"There arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be the greatest."—Luke, ix, 46. "Two fair twins—the puzzled Strangers, which is which, inquire."—Tickell.

OBS. 7.—If which, as a direct relative, is inapplicable to persons, who ought to be preferred to it in all personifications: as,

"The seal is set. Now welcome thou dread power,

Nameless, yet thus omnipotent, which here Walk'st in the shadow of the midnight hour." BYRON: Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Cant, iv, st. 138.

What sort of personage is here imagined and addressed, I will not pretend to say; but it should seem, that who would be more proper than which, though less agreeable in sound before the word here. In one of his notes on this word, Churchill has fallen into a strange error. He will have who to represent a horse! and that, in such a sense, as would require which and not who, even for a person. As he prints the masculine pronoun in Italics, perhaps he thought, with Murray and Webster, that which must needs be "of the neuter gender." [189] He says, "In the following passage, which seems to be used instead of who:—

'Between two horses, which doth bear him best; I have, perhaps, some shallow spirit of judgment' SHAKS., 1 Hen. VI."—Churchill's Gram., p. 226.

OBS. 8.—The pronoun what is usually applied to things only. It has a twofold relation, and is often used (by ellipsis of the noun) both as antecedent and as relative, in the form of a single word; being equivalent to that which, or the thing which—those which, or the things which. In this double relation, what represents two cases at the same time: as, "He is ashamed of what he has done;" that is, "of what [thing or action] he has done;"—or, "of that [thing or action] which he has done." Here are two objectives. The two cases are sometimes alike, sometimes different; for either of them may be the nominative, and either, the objective. Examples: "The dread of censure ought not to prevail over what is proper."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 252. "The public ear will not easily bear what is slovenly and incorrect."—Blair's Rhet., p. 12. "He who buys what he does not need, will often need what he cannot buy."—Student's Manual, p. 290. "What is just, is honest; and again, what is honest, is just."—Cicero. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."—Rev., ii, 7, 11, 17, 29; iii, 6, 13, 22.

OBS. 9.—This pronoun, what, is usually of the singular number, though sometimes plural: as, "I must turn to the faults, or what appear such to me."—Byron. "All distortions and mimicries, as such, are what raise aversion instead of pleasure."—Steele. "Purified indeed from what appear to be its real defects."—Wordsworth's Pref., p. xix. "Every single impression, made even by the same object, is distinguishable from what have gone before, and from what succeed."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 107. "Sensible people express no thoughts but what make some figure."—Ib., Vol. i, p. 399. The following example, which makes what both singular and plural at once, is a manifest solecism: "What has since followed are but natural consequences."—J. C. CALHOUN, Speech in U. S. Senate, March 4, 1850. Here has should be have; or else the form should be this: "What has since followed, is but a natural consequence."

OBS. 10.—The common import of this remarkable pronoun, what, is, as we see in the foregoing examples, twofold; but some instances occur, in which it does not appear to have this double construction, but to be simply declaratory; and many, in which the word is simply an adjective: as, "What a strange run of luck I have had to-day!"—Columbian Orator, p. 293. Here what is a mere adjective; and, in the following examples, a pronoun indefinite:—

"I tell thee what, corporal, I could tear her."—Shak.

"He knows what's what, and that's as high As metaphysic wit can fly."—Hudibras.

OBS. 11.—What is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative at the same time, and is placed before the noun which it represents; being equivalent to the adjective any or all, and the simple relative who, which[190] or that: as, "What money we had, was taken away." That is, "All the money that we had, was taken away." "What man but enters, dies." That is, "Any man who enters, dies." "It was agreed that what goods were aboard his vessels, should be landed."—Mickle's India, p. 89. "What appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from thence."—Internal Policy of Great Britain, p. 196. That is, "All the appearances of worth, which afterwards succeeded."—Priestley's Gram., p. 93. Indeed, this pronoun does not admit of being construed after a noun, as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it so. What put for who or which, is therefore a ludicrous vulgarism; as, "The aspiring youth what fired the Ephesian dome."—Jester. The word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a personal pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]

"What god but enters yon forbidden field, Who yields assistance, or but wills to yield, Back to the skies with shame he shall be driven, Gash'd with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven."—Pope's Homer.

OBS. 12.—The compound whatever or whatsoever has the same peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word what: as, "Whatever word expresses an affirmation, or assertion, is a verb; or thus, Whatever word, with a noun or pronoun before or after it, makes full sense, is a verb."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 78. That is, "Any word which expresses," &c. "We will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth."—Jeremiah, xliv, 17. That is—"any thing, or every thing, which." "Whatever sounds are difficult in pronunciation, are, in the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear."—Blair's Rhet., p. 121; Murray's Gram., p. 325. "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning."—Romans, xv, 4. In all these examples, the word whatever or whatsoever appears to be used both adjectively and relatively. There are instances, however, in which the relation of this term is not twofold, but simple: as, "Whatever useful or engaging endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their shining with proper lustre."—English Reader, p. 23. Here whatever is simply an adjective. "The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the authority of God himself; and there can be no appeal from them to any other authority whatsoever."—London Epistle, 1836. Here whatsoever may be parsed either as an adjective relating to authority, or as an emphatic pronoun in apposition with its noun, like himself in the preceding clause. In this general explanatory sense, whatsoever may be applied to persons as well as to things; as, "I should be sorry if it entered into the imagination of any person whatsoever, that I was preferred to all other patrons."—Duncan's Cicero, p. 11. Here the word whomsoever might have been used.

OBS. 13.—But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which whatever or whatsoever appears to be a double relative, or a term which includes both antecedent and relative; as, "Whatever purifies, fortifies also the heart."—English Reader, p. 23. That is. "All that purifies—or, Everything which purifies—fortifies also the heart." "Whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper."—Psal., i, 3. That is, "All that he doeth—or, All the things which he doeth—shall prosper." This construction, however, may be supposed elliptical. The Latin expression is, "Omnia quæcumque faciet prosperabuntur."—Vulgate. The Greek is similar: [Greek: "Kai panta hosa an poiæi kateuodothæsetai."]—Septuagint. It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of use inclines us to overlook, that what, whatever, and whatsoever, which are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double construction as pronouns. But it is questionable what particular ellipsis we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can.[192] Now if we say the meaning is, "Whatsoever things he doeth, shall prosper;" this, though analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we will have it to be, "Whatsoever things he doeth, they shall prosper;" the pronoun they appears to be pleonastic. So is the word it, in the text, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."—John, ii, 5. If we say the full phrase is, "All things whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper;" this presents, to an English ear, a still more obvious pleonasm. It may be, too, a borrowed idiom, found nowhere but in translations; as, "All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."—Matt., xxi, 22. From these views, there seems to be some objection to any and every method of parsing the above-mentioned construction as elliptical. The learner may therefore say, in such instances, that whatever or whatsoever is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative; and parse it, first as antecedent, in connexion with the latter verb, and then as relative, in connexion with the former. But let him observe that the order of the verbs may be the reverse of the foregoing; as, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."—John, xv, 14. That is, according to the Greek, "If ye do whatsoever I command to you;" Though it would be better English to say, "If ye do whatsoever I command you to do." In the following example, however, it seems proper to recognize an ellipsis; nay, the omissions in the construction of the last line, are as many as three or four;—

"Expatiate with glad step, and choose at will

Whate'er bright spoils the florid earth contains,

Whate'er the waters, or the liquid air."—Akenside.

OBS. 14.—As the simple word who differs from which and what, in being always a declinable pronoun; so its compounds differ from theirs, in being incapable of either of the double constructions above described. Yet whoever and whoso or whosoever, as well as whichever and whichsoever, whatever and whatsoever, derive, from the affix which is added, or from the peculiarity of their syntax, an unlimited signification—or a signification which is limited only by the following verb; and, as some general term, such as any person, or all persons, is implied as the antecedent, they are commonly connected with other words as if they stood for two cases at once: as, "Whoever seeks, shall find." That is, "Any person who seeks, shall find." But as the case of this compound, like that of the simple word who, whose, or whom, is known and determined by its form, it is necessary, in parsing, to treat this phraseology as being elliptical. The compounds of who do not, therefore, actually stand for two cases, though some grammarians affirm that they do.[193] Example: "The soldiers made proclamation, that they would sell the empire to whoever would purchase it at the highest price."—Goldsmith's Rome, p. 231. That is—"to any man who would purchase it." The affix ever or soever becomes unnecessary when the ellipsis is supplied; and this fact, it must be confessed, is a plausible argument against the supposition of an ellipsis. But the supposing of an antecedent understood, is here unavoidable; because the preposition to cannot govern the nominative case, and the word whoever cannot be an objective. And so in all other instances in which the two cases are different: as, "He bids whoever is athirst, to come."—Jenks's Devotions, p. 151. "Elizabeth publicly threatened, that she would have the head of whoever had advised it."—HUME: in Priestley's Gram., p. 104.

OBS. 15.—If it is necessary in parsing to supply the antecedent to whoever or whosoever, when two different cases are represented, it is but analogous and reasonable to supply it also when two similar cases occur: as, "Whoever borrows money, is bound in conscience to repay it."—Paley. "Whoever is eager to find excuses for vice and folly, will find his own backwardness to practise them much diminished."—Chapone. "Whoever examines his own imperfections, will cease to be fastidious; whoever restrains humour and caprice, will cease to be squeamish."—Crabb's Synonymes. In all these examples, we have the word in the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. And here it is most commonly found. It is always of the third person; and, though its number may be plural; its gender, feminine; its case, possessive or objective; we do not often use it in any of these ways. In some instances, the latter verb is attended with an other pronoun, which represents the same person or persons; as, "And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely."—Rev., xxii, 17. The case of this compound relative always depends upon what follows it, and not upon what precedes; as, "Or ask of whomsoever he has taught."—Cowper. That is—"of any person whom he has taught." In the following text, we have the possessive plural: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them."—John, xx, 23. That is, "Whatever persons' sins."

OBS. 16.—In such phraseology as the following, there is a stiffness which ought to be avoided: "For whomever God loves, he loves them in Christ, and no otherways."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: "For all whom God loves, he loves in Christ, and no otherwise." "When the Father draws, whomever he draws, may come."—Penington. Better: "When the Father draws, all whom he draws, (or, every one whom he draws.) may come." A modern critic of immense promise cites the following clause as being found in the Bible: "But he loveth whomsoever followeth after righteousness."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 72. It is lamentable to see the unfaithfulness of this gentleman's quotations. About half of them are spurious; and I am confident that this one is neither Scripture nor good English. The compound relative, being the subject of followeth, should be in the nominative case; for the object of the verb loveth is the antecedent every one, understood. But the idea may be better expressed, without any ellipsis, thus: "He loveth every one who followeth after righteousness." The following example from the same hand is also wrong, and the author's rule and reasoning connected with it, are utterly fallacious: "I will give the reward to whomsoever will apprehend the rogue."—Ib., p. 256. Much better say, "to any one who;" but, if you choose the compound word, by all analogy, and all good authority, it must here be whoever or whosoever. The shorter compound whoso, which occurs very frequently in the Bible, is now almost obsolete in prose, but still sometimes used by the poets. It has the same meaning as whosoever, but appears to have been confined to the nominative singular; and whatso is still more rare: as, "Whoso diggeth a pit, shall fall therein."—Prov., xxvi, 27.

"Which whoso tastes, can be enslaved no more."—Cowper.

"On their intended journey to proceed,

And over night whatso thereto did need."—Hubbard.

OBS. 17.—The relative that is applied indifferently to persons, to brute animals, and to inanimate things. But the word that is not always a relative pronoun. It is sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative pronoun and also a relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a "demonstrative adjective pronoun," it is a pronominal adjective, and it is better to call it so. (1.) It is a relative pronoun whenever it is equivalent to who, whom, or which: as, "There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not"—Eccl., vii, 20. "It was diverse from all the beasts that were before it."—Dan., vii, 7. "And he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself."—Rev., xix, 12. (2.) It is a pronominal adjective whenever it relates to a noun expressed or understood after it: as, "Thus with violence shall that great city, Babylon, be thrown down."—Rev., xviii, 21. "Behold that [thing] which I have seen."—Eccl., v, 18. "And they said, 'What is that[194] [matter] to us? See thou to that' [matter]."—Matt., xxvii, 4. (3.) In its other uses, it is a conjunction, and, as such, it most commonly makes what follows it, the purpose, object, or final cause, of what precedes it: as, "I read that I may learn."—Dr. Adam. "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious."—St. Paul. "Live well, that you may die well."—Anon. "Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob."—Genesis. "Judge not, that ye be not judged."—Matthew.

OBS. 18.—The word that, or indeed any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech uncertain; as, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."—Gen., ii, 17. Here that seems to be a relative pronoun, representing day, in the third person, singular, neuter; yet, in other respects, it seems to be a conjunction, because there is nothing to determine its case. Better: "For in the day on which thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This mongrel construction of the word that, were its justification possible, is common enough in our language to be made good English. But it must needs be condemned, because it renders the character of the term ambiguous, and is such a grammatical difficulty as puts the parser at a dead nonplus. Examples: (1.) "But at the same time THAT men are giving their orders, God on his part is likewise giving his."—Rollin's Hist., ii, 106. Here the phrase, "at the same time that," is only equivalent to the adverb while; and yet it is incomplete, because it means, "at the same time at which," or, "at the very time at which." (2.) "The author of this work, at the same time THAT he has endeavoured to avoid a plan, which may be too concise or too extensive, defective in its parts or irregular in the disposition of them, has studied to render his subject sufficiently easy, intelligible, and comprehensive."—Murray's Gram., Introd., p. 1. This sentence, which is no unfair specimen of its author's original style, needs three corrections: 1. For "at the same time that," say while: 2. Drop the phrase, "which may be," because it is at least useless: 3. For "subject," read treatise, or compilation. You will thus have tolerable diction. Again: (3.) "The participles of active verbs act upon objects and govern them in the objective case, in the same manner that the verbs do, from which they are derived. A participle in the nature of an adjective, belongs or refers to nouns or pronouns in the same manner that adjectives do; and when it will admit the degrees of comparison, it is called a participial adjective."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 38. This is the style of a gentleman of no ordinary pretensions, one who thinks he has produced the best grammar that has ever appeared in our language. To me, however, his work suggests an abundance of questions like these; each of which would palpably involve him in a dilemma: What is here meant by "objects," the words, or the things? if the former, how are they acted upon? if the latter, how are they governed? If "a participle is called an adjective," which is it, an adjective, or a participle? If "a participle refers to nouns or pronouns," how many of these are required by the relation? When does a participle "admit the degrees of comparison?" How shall we parse the word that in the foregoing sentences?

OBS. 19.—The word as, though usually a conjunction or an adverb, has sometimes the construction of a relative pronoun, especially after such, so many, or as many; and, whatever the antecedent noun may be, this is the only fit relative to follow any of these terms in a restrictive sense. Examples: "We have been accustomed to repose on its veracity with such humble confidence as suppresses curiosity."—Johnson's Life of Cowley. "The malcontents made such demands as none but a tyrant could refuse."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., Let. 7. "The Lord added to the church daily such [persons] as should be saved."—Acts, ii, 47. "And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."—Acts, xiii, 48. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten."—Rev., iii, 19. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?"—Rom., vi, 3. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."—Gal., iii, 27. "A syllable is so many letters as are spoken with one motion of the voice."—Perley's Gram., p. 8. "The compound tenses are such as cannot be formed without an auxiliary verb."—Murray's Gram., p. 91. "Send him such books as will please him."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 37. "In referring to such a division of the day as is past, we use the imperfect."—Murray's Gram., p. 70. "Participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived."—Ib., Rule xiv. "Participles have the same government as the verbs have from which they are derived."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 94. In some of these examples, as is in the nominative case, and in others, in the objective; in some, it is of the masculine gender, and in others, it is neuter; in some, it is of the plural number, and in others, it is singular: but in all, it is of the third person; and in all, its person, number, gender, and case, are as obvious as those of any invariable pronoun can be.

OBS. 20.—Some writers—(the most popular are Webster, Bullions, Wells, and Chandler—) imagine that as, in such sentences as the foregoing, can be made a conjunction, and not a pronoun, if we will allow them to consider the phraseology elliptical. Of the example for which I am indebted to him, Dr. Webster says, "As must be considered as the nominative to will please, or we must suppose an ellipsis of several words: as, 'Send him such books as the books which will please him, or as those which will please him.'"—Improved Gram., p. 37. This pretended explanation must be rejected as an absurdity. In either form of it, two nominatives are idly imagined between as and its verb; and, I ask, of what is the first one the subject? If you say, "Of are understood," making the phrase, "such books as the books are;" does not as bear the same relation to this new verb are, that is found in the pronoun who, when one says, "Tell him who you are?" If so, as is a pronoun still; so that, thus far, you gain nothing. And if you will have the whole explanation to be, "Send him such books as the books are books which will please him;" you multiply words, and finally arrive at nothing, but tautology and nonsense. Wells, not condescending to show his pupils what he would supply after this as, thinks it sufficient to say, the word is "followed by an ellipsis of one or more words required to complete the construction; as, 'He was the father of all such as [] handle the harp and organ.'—Gen. 4: 21."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 164; 3d Ed., p. 172.