Page images
PDF
EPUB

The adverbs here, there, where, are often improperly applied to verbs signifying motion, instead of the adverbs hither, thither, whither : as, He came here hastily ;' "They rode there with speed.' They should be, He came hither :).They rode thither,' &c.

We have some examples of adverbs being used for substantives : ' In 1687, he erected it into a community of regulars, since when, it has begun to increase in those countries as a religious order ;' i. e. since which time."

A little while and I shall not see you ;' i. e. a short time.' "It is worth their while ;' i. e. “it deserves their time and pains.' But this mode of expression rather suits familiar than grave style.. The same may be said of the phrase, “To do a thing anyhow ; ' i. e. in any manner;'or, somehow ;' i. e, in some manner.' 'Somehow, worthy as these people are, they are under the influence of prejudice.'

Such expressions as the following, though not destitute of authority, are very inelegant, and do not suit the idiom of our language; The then ministry,' for, the ministers of that time ;' The above discourse,' for, 'the preceding discourse.'

Two negatives, in English, destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative : as, Nor did they not perceive him ;' that is, they did perceive him.' His language, though inelegant, is not ungrammatical;' that is, 'it is grammatical.'

It is better to express an affirmation, by a regular affirmative, than by two separate negatives, as in the former sentence : but when one of the negatives is joined to another word, as in the latter sentence, the two negatives form a pleasing and delicate variety of expresa

sion.

Some writers have improperly employed two negatives instead of one : as in the following instances : I never did repent of doing good, nor shall not now ;' nor shall I now.' 'Never no imitator grew up to this author :) never did any,' &c. I cannot by no means allow him what his argument must prove ;' I cannot by any means,' &c. or, I can by no means. Nor let no comforter approach me ;''Nor let any comforter,' &c. “Nor is danger ever apprehended in such a government, no

more than we commonly apprehend danger from thunder or earthquakes :' it should be any more.' 'Ariosto, Tasso, Galileo, no more than Raphael, were not born in Republics.' It would be better thus, Neither Ariosto, Tasso, nor Galileo, any more than Raphael, was born in a republic.'

OF Rule XXIV.-. The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective. 'Who servest thou under ?' Who do you speak to ?? "We are still much at a loss who civil power belongs to.'

Who do you ask for?' ' Associate not with those who none can speak well of.' In all these places it ought to be whom.'

The prepositions to and for are often understood, chiefly before the pronouns: as, ' Give me the book ;' • Get me some paper ;' that is, to me ;' for me.' "Wo is me ;' i. e. to me. He was banished England ;' i. c. from England.

The preposition is often separated from the relative which it governs : as, 'Whom will you give it to ?' instead of, To whom will you give it ? “He is an author whom I am much delighted with ;' " The world is too polite to shock their authors with a truth, which generally their booksellers are the first that inform them of.' This is an idiom to which our language is strongly inclined; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing · but the placing of the preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous, and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style.

Some writers separate the preposition from the noun or pronoun which it governs, in order to connect different prepositions with the same word : as, “To suppose the zodiac and planets to be efficient of, and antecedent to, themselves.' This construction, whether in the familiar or the solemn style, is always inelegant, and should generally be avoided. In forms of law, and the like, where fulness and exactness of expression must take place of every other consideration, it may be admitted.

Different relations, and different senses, must be expressed by different prepositions, though in conjunction with the same verb or adjective. Thus we say, 'to con

verse with a person, upon a subject in a house,' &c. We also say, 'We are disappointed of a thing,' when we cannot get it, and disappointed in it,' when we have it, and find it does not answer our expectations. But two different prepositions must be improper in the same construction, and in the same sentence; as, 'The combat between thirty French, against twenty English.'

In some cases it is difficult to say, to which of two prepositions the preference is to be given, as both are used promiscuously, and custom has not decided in favor of either of them. We say, 'Expert at,' and 'expert in a thing.' 'Expert in finding a remedy for his mistakes';'* Expert in deception.'

When prepositions are subjoined to nouns, they are generally the same that are subjoined to the verbs from which the nouns are derived : as, ' A compliance with,' 'to comply with ;.' 'A disposition to tyranny,' disposed to tyrannise.'

Dr. Priestly observes, that many writers affect to subjoin to any word, the preposition with which it is compounded, or the idea of which it implies; in order to point out the relation of the words, in a more distinct and definite manner, and to avoid the more indeterminate prepositions of and to: but general practice, and the idiom of the English tongue, seem to oppose the innovation. Thus many writers say, 'Averse from a thing ;' "The abhorrence against all other sects. But other writers say, "Averse to it ;' which seems more truly English : Averse to any advice.' Swift. An attention to latent metaphor may be pleaded in favor of tho former example : and this is a rule of general use, in directing what preposition to subjoin to a word. Thus we say, devolve upon a thing :' founded on natural resemblance. But this rule would sometimes mislead us, particularly where the figure has become nearly evanescent. . The words averse and aversion (says Dr. Campbell) are more properly construed with to than with from.'

As an accurate and appropriate use of the preposition is of great importance, we shall select a considerable number of examples of impropriety, in the application of this part of speech.

.

. First-With respect to the preposition of.

"He found the greatest difficulty of writing ;' ling writing.'

It might have given me a greater taste of its antiquities.' A taste of a thing implies actual enjoyment of it ; but a taste for it, implies only a capacity of enjoyment.

This had much greater share of inciting him, than any regard after his father's commands ;' share in inciting,' and 'regard to his father's,' &c.

Second— With respect to the prepositions to and FOR,

You have bestowed your favors to the most deserve ing persons ;' upon the most deserving,' &c.

He accused the ministers for betraying the Dutch ;) of having betrayed.

His abhorrence to that superstitious figure ;' Cof that,' &c.

A great change to the better ;' for the better,' &c. Your prejudice to my cause ;? ! against.' "The English were very different people then to what they are at present ;' from what,' &c,

In compliance to the declaration ;' with,' &c. It is more than they thought for ;' thought of.' "There is no need for it ;' of it.''

"No discouragement for the authors to proceed ;''to the authors,' &c.

It was perfectly in compliance to some persons ;' 'with some persons.'

Third—With respect to the prepositions with and UPON.

Reconciling himself with the king.' “Those things which have the greatest resemblance with each other, frequently differ the most.

"That such rejection should be consonant with our common nature.'

"The history of Peter is agreeable with the sacred texts.' In all the above instances, it should be, "to,' instead of with.'

It is a use that perhaps I should not have thought on ;'(thought of.'

A greater quantity may be taken from the heap, without making any sensible alteration upon it ;' in it.'

Intrusted to persons on whom the parliament could confide ;' in whom.'

Fourth-With respect to the prepositions IN, FROM, &e.

They should be informed in some parts of his character ;' about,' or, 'concerning.'

"Could he have profited from repeated experiences ;' " by. From seems to be superfluous after forbear : as, (He could not forbear from appointing the pope,' &c.

“The character which we may now value ourselves by drawing ;' upon drawing.'

"Neither of them shall make me swerve out of the path ;' from the path.'

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel ;' it ought to be which strain out a gnat,' or, "take a gnat out of the liquor by straining it.' The impropriety of the preposition has wholly destroyed the meaning of the phrase.

The verb to found, when used literally, is more properly followed by the preposition on : as, 'The house was founded on a rock.' But in the metaphorical application, it is often better with in ; as in this sentence, They maintained, that dominion is founded in grace. Both the sentences would be badly expressed, if these prepositions were transposed ; though there are perhaps cases in which either of them would be good.

The preposition among generally implies a number of things. It cannot be properly used in conjunction with the word every, whicli is in the singular number : as, • Which is found among every species of liberty ;' "The opinion seems to gain ground among every body ;' with.'

The preposition to is made use of before nouns of place, when they follow verbs and participles of motion : as, 'I went to London ;''I am going to town.' But the preposition at is generally used after the neuter verb to be : as, 'I have been at London ;' " I was at the

« PreviousContinue »