Page images


where he was already, by his precipitate career, too fatally advanced ;" i. e. “ in which he was." But it would be better to avoid this mode of expression.

The adverbs hence, thence, and whence, imply a preposition; for they signify," from this place, from that place, from what place.” It seems, therefore, strictly speaking, to be improper to join a preposition with them, because it is superfluous : as,

- This is the leviathan, from whence the wits of our age are said to borrow their weapons ;" “ an ancient author prophesies from hence.” But the origin of these words is little attended to, and the preposition from is so often used in construction with them, that the omission of it in many cases, would seem stiff, and be disagreeable.

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.

[ocr errors]

3. 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 any-how ;" 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 ministry of that time;" “ The above discourse,” for “the preceding discourse."


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


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.”

See Vol. ii. Part 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 16. It is better to express an affirmation, by a regular aflirma

[ocr errors]

tive, 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 expression.

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;"> 6 nor shall I nozo." 66 Never no imitator grew up to his author;" never did any," &c. “ I cannot by no means allow him what his argument must prove :" “ I cannot by any means,” &c. or, 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." "Neither Ariosto Tasso, nor Galileo, any more than Raphael, was born in a republic."

- I can by


Rule XVII.

[ocr errors]

PREPOSITIONS govern the objective case : as, “ [ have heard a good character of her;" “ From him that is needy turn not away;" “ Å word to the wise is sufficient for them ;" “ We may be good and happy without riches;"

See Vol. ii. Part. 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 17. The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective. 66 Who servest thou under ?" “Who do you speak to ?66 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.” See Note 1.

The prepositions to and for are often understood, chiefly before the pronouns : as,

"Give me the book ;" some paper;" that is,“ lo me ; for me.” “ Wo is me;" i. e. to

“ He was banished England;" i. e. " from England."

1. 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 authors with a truth, which generally their booksellers are the

66 Get me

first that inform them of." This is an idiom to wbich 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.

-2. 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 lo 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.

3. Different relations, and different senses, must be expressed by different prepositions, though in conjunction with the same verb or adjective.

Thus we say,

66 To converse 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 favour of either of them. We say, “ Expert at,” and “expert in a thing." “Expert at 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 tyrannize."

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, seems to oppose the innovation. Thus many writers say,

"Averse from a thing;" “ The abhorrence against all other sects.” But other writers use, “ Averse to it;" which seems more truly English : “ Averse to any advice." Swift.

Swift. An attention to


latent metaphor may be pleaded in favour of the former example; and this is a rule of general use, in directing what prepositions 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. Thus, we should naturally expect, that the word depend would require from after it: but custom obliges us to say, “depend upon,” as well as, “insist upon a thing.”

Were we to use the same word where the figure is manifest, we could apply to it no other preposition than from: as, “The cage depends from the roof of the building:” and yet this mode of expression is inadmissible.

“The words averse and aversion (says Dr. Campbell) are more properly construed with to than with from. The eramples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison outnumbered by those in favour of the former. The argument from etymology is here of no value, being taken from the use of another language. If, by the same rule, we were. to regulate all nouns and verbs of Latin original, our present syntax would be overturned. It is more conformable to English analogy with to: the words dislike, and hatred, nearly synonymous, are thus construed."

ing,” &c.

son," &c.

4. 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 is resolved of going to the Persian court;" “on go"He was totally dependent of the Papal crown ;" " on the Papal,” &c. “To call of a person,” and “to wait of him;"

on a per“He was eager of recommending it to his fellow citizens ;": “ in recommending," &c.

Of is sometimes omitted, and sometimes inserted, after worthy: as, “It is worthy observation," or, “ of observation."

But it would have been better omitted in the following sentences. “The emulation, who should serve their country best, no longer subsists among them, but of who should obtain the most lucrative command."

“The rain hath been falling of a long time;" “ falling a , long time.”

"It is situation chiefly which decides of the fortune and characters of men;" "decides the fortune," or, “ concerning the fortune." VOL. I.


[ocr errors]



“ He found the greatest difficulty of writing;": " in 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 a 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 favours to the most deserving persons;" “ upon the most deserving," &c.

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

“His abhorrence to that superstitious figure ;' «of that,” &c.

A great change to the better;" "for the better." “ 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.” For is superfluous in the phrase, “More than he knows for.

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

“ It was perfectly in compliance to some persons ;" "with some persons.

“ The wisest princes need not think it any diminution to their greatness, or derogation to their sufficiency, to rely upon counsel;" " diminution of,” and “derogation from.”

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."

« Conformable with," &c. “ The history of Peter is 'agreeable with the sacred texts.”

In all the above instances, it should be, "to," instead of is 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;" 6 in whom."

“ He was made much on at Argos ;"" much of.

« PreviousContinue »