Present Participle, Lying, Perfect Participle, Lain.

In such sentences as these, wherein the verb is used reflectively,--"If I lay myself down on the gra.s.s I shall catch cold," "He laid himself down on the green sward,"--the verb "to lay" is with propriety subst.i.tuted for the verb "to lie;" for the addition of the emphatic p.r.o.noun _myself_, or _himself_, const.i.tuting an objective case, and coming _immediately after_ the verb, _without the intervention of a preposition_, renders it necessary that the verb employed should be _active_, not _neuter_, because "active verbs govern the objective case." But this is the only construction in which "to lay" instead of "to lie" can be sanctioned by the rules of grammar.

XI.

The same confusion often arises in the use of the verbs _sit_ and _set_, _rise_ and _raise_. _Sit_ is a neuter verb, _set_ an active one; yet how often do people most improperly say, "I have _set_ with him for hours,"

"He _set_ on the beach till the sun went down," "She _set_ three nights by the patient's bedside." What did they set,--potatoes, traps, or what?

for as an objective case is evidently implied by the use of an active verb, an object is indispensable to complete the sense. No tense whatever of the verb "to sit" is rendered "set," which has but _one word_ throughout the whole verb, except the active participle "setting;"

and "sit" has but two words, "sit" and "sat," except the active participle "sitting;" therefore it is very easy to correct this error by the help of a little attention.

XII.

_Raise_ is the same kind of verb as _set_,--active-transitive, requiring an objective case after it; and it contains only two words, _raise_ and _raised_, besides the active participle _raising_. _Rise_ is a neuter verb, not admitting an objective case. It contains two words, _rise_ and _rose_; besides the two participles, _rising_ and _risen_. It is improper, therefore, to say, "He _rose_ the books from the floor," "He _rises_ the fruit as it falls," "After she had _risen_ the basket on her head," &c. In all such cases use the other verb _raise_. It occurs to me, that if people would take the trouble to reckon how many different words a verb contains, they would be in less danger of mistaking them.

"Lay" contains two words, "lay" and "laid," besides the active participle "laying." "Lie" has also two words, "lie" and "lay," besides the two participles "lying" and "lain;" and from this second word "lay"

arises all the confusion I have had to lament in the foregoing pages.

XIII.

To the scholar I would remark the prevalent impropriety of adopting the subjunctive instead of the indicative mood, in sentences where doubt or uncertainty is expressed, although the former can only be used in situations in which "contingency and futurity" are combined. Thus, a gentleman, giving an order to his tailor, may say, "Make me a coat of a certain description, if it _fit_ me well I will give you another order;"

because the "fit" alluded to is a thing which the future has to determine. But when the coat is made and brought home, he cannot say, "If this cloth _be good_ I will give you another order," for the quality of the cloth is _already_ determined; the future will not alter it. It may be good, it may be bad, but whatever it _may be_ it already _is_; therefore, as contingency only is implied, _without futurity_, it must be rendered in the indicative mood, "If this cloth _is_ good," &c. We may with propriety say, "If the book be sent in time, I shall be able to read it to-night," because the sending of the book is an event which the _future_ must produce; but we must not say, "If this book be sent for me, it is a mistake," because here the act alluded to is already performed,--the book has come. I think it very likely that people have been beguiled into this error by the prefix of the conjunction, forgetting that conjunctions may be used with the indicative as well as with the subjunctive mood.

XIV.

Some people use the imperfect tense of the verb "to go," instead of the past participle, and say, "I should have _went_," instead of "I should have gone." This is _not_ a very common error, but it is a very great one; and I should not have thought it could come within the range of the cla.s.s for which this book is written, but that I have heard the fault committed by people of even tolerable education. One might as well say, "I should have _was_ at the theatre last night," instead of "I should have _been_ at the theatre," &c., as say, "I should have _went_" instead of "I should have _gone_."

XV.

Others there are who invert this error, and use the past participle of the verb "to do" instead of a tense of the verb, saying, "I _done_"

instead of "I _did_." This is inadmissible. "I _did_ it," or "I _have done_ it," is a phrase correct in its formation, its application being, of course, dependent on other circ.u.mstances.

XVI.

There are speakers who are _too refined_ to use the past (or perfect) participle of the verbs "to drink," "to run," "to begin," &c., and subst.i.tute the _imperfect tense_, as in the verb "to go." Thus, instead of saying, "I have drunk," "he has run," "they have begun," they say, "I have _drank_" "he has _ran_," "they have _began_" &c. These are minor errors, I admit; still, nice ears detect them.

XVII.

I trust it is unnecessary to warn any of my readers against adopting the flagrant vulgarity of saying "_don't_ ought," and "_hadn't_ ought,"

instead of "ought _not_." It is also incorrect to employ _no_ for _not_ in such phrases as, "If it is true or _no_ (not)," "Is it so or _no_ (not)?"

XVIII.

Many people have an odd way of saying, "I expect," when they only mean "I think," or "I conclude;" as, "I expect my brother is gone to Richmond to-day," "I expect those books were sent to Paris last year." This is wrong. _Expect_ can relate only to _future_ time, and must be followed by a future tense, or a verb in the infinitive mood; as, "I expect my brother _will go_ to Richmond to-day," "I expect _to find_ those books were sent to Paris last year." Here the introduction of a future tense, or of a verb in the infinitive mood, rectifies the grammar without altering the sense; but such a portion of the sentence must not be omitted in expression, as no such ellipsis is allowable.

XIX.

The majority of speakers use the imperfect tense and the perfect tense together, in such sentences as the following,--"I intended to _have called_ on him last night," "I meant to _have purchased_ one yesterday,"--or a pluperfect tense, and a perfect tense together I have sometimes heard, as, "You should _have written_ to _have told_ her."

These expressions are illogical, because, as the _intention_ to perform an act _must_ be _prior_ to the act contemplated, the act itself cannot with propriety be expressed by a tense indicating a period of time _previous_ to the intention. The three sentences should be corrected thus, placing the second verb in the infinitive mood, "I intended _to call_ on him last night," "I meant _to purchase_ one yesterday," "You should have written _to tell_ her."

But the imperfect tense and the perfect tense are to be combined in such sentences as the following, "I remarked that they appeared to have undergone great fatigue;" because here the act of "undergoing fatigue"

_must_ have taken place _previous_ to the period in which you have had the opportunity of remarking its effect on their appearance; the sentence, therefore, is both grammatical and logical.

XX.

Another strange perversion of grammatical propriety is to be heard occasionally in the adoption of the present tense of the verb "to have,"

most probably instead of the past participle, but in situations in which the participle itself would be a redundance; such as, "If I had _have_ known," "If he had _have_ come according to appointment," "If you had _have_ sent me that intelligence," &c. Of what utility is the word "have" in the sentence at all? What office does it perform? If it stands in place of any other word, that other word would still be an inc.u.mbrance; but the sentence being complete without it, it becomes an illiterate superfluity. "If I had _have_ known that you would have been there before me, I would have written to you to _have_ waited till I had _have_ come." What a construction from the lips of an educated person!

and yet we do sometimes hear this _slip-slop_ uttered by people who are considered to "speak French and Italian _well_," and who enjoy the reputation of being "accomplished!"

XXI.

It is amusing to observe the broad line of demarcation which exists between _vulgar_ bad grammar and _genteel_ bad grammar, and which characterizes the violation of almost every rule of syntax. The vulgar speaker uses adjectives instead of adverbs, and says, "This letter is written _shocking_;" the genteel speaker uses adverbs instead of adjectives, and says, "This writing looks _shockingly_." The perpetrators of the latter offence may fancy they can shield themselves behind the grammatical law which compels the employment of an adverb, not an adjective, to qualify a verb, and behind the first rule of syntax, which says "a verb must agree with its nominative." But which _is_ the nominative in the expression alluded to? _Which_ performs the act of looking,--the writing or the speaker? To say that a thing _looks_ when _we_ look _at_ it, is an idiom peculiar to our language, and some idioms are not reducible to rules; they are conventional terms which pa.s.s current, like bank notes, for the sterling they represent, but must not be submitted to the test of grammatical alchymy. It is improper, therefore, to say, "The queen looks beautifully," "The flowers smell sweetly," "This writing looks shockingly;" because it is the speaker that performs the act of looking, smelling, &c., not the noun looked _at_; and though, by an idiomatical construction necessary to avoid circ.u.mlocution, the sentence _imputes the act_ to the _thing beheld_, the qualifying word must express the quality of the thing spoken of, _adjectively_, instead of qualifying the act of the nominative understood, _adverbially_. What an adjective is to a noun, an adverb is to a verb; an adjective expresses the quality of a thing, and an adverb the manner of an action. Consider what it is you wish to express, the _quality of a thing_, or the _manner of an action_, and use an adjective or adverb accordingly. But beware that you discriminate justly; for though you cannot say, "The queen looked _majestically_ in her robes,"

because here the act of _looking_ is performed by the spectator, who looks _at_ her, you can and _must_ say, "The queen looked _graciously_ on the pet.i.tioner," "The queen looked _mercifully_ on his prayer,"

because here the _act_ of _looking_ is performed _by_ the queen. You cannot say, "These flowers smell sweetly," because it is _you_ that smell, and not the flowers; but you can say, "These flowers perfume the air deliciously," because it is _they_ which impart the fragrance, not you. You cannot say, "This dress looks badly," because it is you that look, not the dress; but you can say, "This dress _fits_ badly," because it is the dress that performs the act of fitting either well or ill.

There are some peculiar idioms which it would be better to avoid altogether, if possible; but if you feel compelled to use them, take them as they are,--you cannot prune and refine them by the rules of syntax, and to attempt to do so shows ignorance as well as affectation.

XXII.

There is a mistake often committed in the use of the adverbs of place, _hence_, _thence_, _whence_. People are apt to say, "He will go _from thence_ to-morrow," &c. The preposition "from" is included in these adverbs, therefore it becomes tautology in sense when prefixed to them.

XXIII.

"Equally as well" is a very common expression, and a very incorrect one; the adverb of comparison, "as," has no right in the sentence. "Equally well," "Equally high," "Equally dear," should be the construction; and if a complement be necessary in the phrase, it should be preceded by the preposition "with," as, "The wall was equally high with the former one," "The goods at Smith's are equally dear with those sold at the shop next door," &c. "Equally the same" is tautology.

XXIV.

"Whether," sometimes an adverb, sometimes a conjunction, is a word that plainly indicates a choice of things (of course I cannot be supposed to mean a _freedom_ of choice); it is highly improper, therefore, to place it, as many do, at the head of each part of a sentence, as, "I have not yet made up my mind whether I shall go to France, or _whether_ I shall remain in England." The conjunction should not be repeated, as it is evident the alternative is expressed _only in the combination_ of the _two_ parts of the sentence, not in either of them taken separately; and the phrase should stand thus, "I have not yet made up my mind whether I shall go to France _or_ remain in England."

XXV.

There is an awkwardness prevalent amongst all cla.s.ses of society in such sentences as the following: "He quitted his horse, and got _on to_ a stage coach," "He jumped _on to_ the floor," "She laid it _on to_ a dish," "I threw it _on to_ the fire." Why use two prepositions where one would be quite as explicit, and far more elegant? n.o.body, at the present day, would think of saying, "He came up to London _for_ to go to the exhibition," because the preposition "for" would be an awkward superfluity. So is "to" in the examples given; in each of which there is an unwieldiness of construction which reminds one of the process of glueing, or fastening, one thing "on to" another. Expunge the redundant preposition, and be a.s.sured, gentle reader, the sentence will still be found "an elegant sufficiency." There are some situations, however, in which the two prepositions may with propriety be employed, though they are never indispensable, as, "I accompanied such a one to Islington, and then walked on to Kingsland." But here _two_ motions are implied, the walking onward, and the reaching of a certain point. More might be said to ill.u.s.trate the distinction, but we believe it will not be deemed necessary.

XXVI.

There seems to be a natural tendency to deal in a redundance of prepositions. Many people talk of "continuing _on_." I should be glad to be informed in what other direction it would be possible to _continue_.