on to declare that there are, and distinguish of, four manners of saying Per se."--Walker's Treatise of Particles, p. xii. Better: "He then proceeds to show, that per se is susceptible of four different senses." "In just allegory and similitude there is always a propriety, or, if you choose to call it, congruity, in the literal sense, as well as a distinct meaning or sentiment suggested, which is called the figurative sense."--Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 291. Better: "In just allegory or similitude, there is always a propriety--or, if you choose to call it so, a congruity--in the literal sense," &c. "It must then be meant of his sins who makes, not of his who becomes, the convert."--Atterbury's Sermons, i, 2. Better: "It must then be meant of his sins who makes the convert, not of his who becomes converted." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."--1 Cor., ii, 9. A more regular construction would be: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." The following example, from Pope, may perhaps be conceded to the poet, as an allowable ellipsis of the words "a friend," after is:
"In who obtain defence, or who defend;
In him who is, or him who finds, a friend."
--Essay on Man, Ep. iv, l. 60.
Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, "There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective case."--Lowth's Gram., p. 73. He should have said--"of both the nominative and the objective case." Dr. Webster, citing the line, "In him who is, and him who finds, a friend," adds, "Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but without reason, as the cases are not distinguished in English."--Improved Gram., p. 175.
OBS. 7.--In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned the subject of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule--or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative. This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb. Example: "[Greek: Eipen auton phonæthænai]."--Mark, x, 49. "Ait illum vocari."--Leusden. "Jussit eum vocari."--Beza. "Præcepit illum vocari."--Vulgate. "He commanded him to be called."--English Bible. "He commanded that he should be called."--Milnes's Gr. Gram., p. 143. "Il dit qu'on l'appelât."--French Bible. "He bid that somebody should call him." "Il commanda qu'on le fît venir."--Nouveau Test., Paris, 1812. "He commanded that they should make him come;" that is, "lead him, or bring him." "Il commanda qu'on l'appelât."--De Sacy's N. Test.
OBS. 8.--In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition. Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. "Gaudeo te val=ere," "I am glad that thou art well," cannot be translated more literally; because, "I am glad thee to be well," would not be good English. "Aiunt regem advent=are," "They say the king is coming," may be otherwise rendered "They declare the king to be coming;" but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of aiunt, say, into such a verb as will govern the noun.
OBS. 9.--The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: "But experience teacheth us, both these opinions to be alike ridiculous."--Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, "But experience teaches us, that both these opinions are alike ridiculous." The verbs believe, think, imagine, and others expressing mental action, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: "RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] 'I believe your brother to be a good man.' Here believe does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. Brother, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb to be, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular."--S. Barrett's Gram., p. 135. This author teaches that, "The infinitive mode agrees with the objective case in number and person."--Ibid. Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun brother, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb believe, and the subject of the neuter infinitive to be, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.
OBS. 10.--There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: "The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, 'Suffer me to depart.'" [340]--English Parser, p. 34. "When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as 'I understood it to be him,' 'Suffer me to depart,' such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, the subject of it. The reason of this is--the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive fo
