Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/529



OBS. 11.—Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you to this or of this, 'Persuadeo hoc tibi. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, Hoc tibi persuadetur, 'You are persuaded of this;' not, Tu persuaderis. 'He trusted me with this affair,' or 'He believed me in this,' Hoc mihi credidit.—Passively, Hoc mihi creditum est. 'I told you this,' Hoc tibi dixi. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' Hoc tibi dictum est; not, Tu dictus es." [No, surely: for, 'Tu dictus es,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'—and, if followed by any case, it must be the nominative.'] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, Hoc tibi dictum est, means not only 'This was told to you,' but 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS.' Liber mihi apatre promissus est, means both 'A book was promised (to) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' Is primum rogatua est sententiam, 'He was first asked for his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked of him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice." See Grants Latin Gram., p. 210.

OBS. 12.—Murray's second censure upon passive government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated. 'The bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the house of lords.' 'Thrasea was forbidden the presence of the emperor.' 'He was shown that very story in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: 'The bishops and abbots were allowed to have (or to take) their seats in the house of lords;' or, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed to the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden to approach the presence of the emperor;' or, 'The presence of the emperor was forbidden to Thrasea:' 'That very story was shown to him in one of his own books.'"—Octavo Gram., p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that—Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice."—Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised me a reward. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., pp. 110 and 112.

OBS. 13.—The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs—probably a vast majority—govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He paid my board; I told you so." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, to name, to mention. What is there that cannot be named or mentioned? Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, to transgress a law, or rule. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or something equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, "He lived a virtuous life."—"Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed"—Gen., xxxvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."—Isaiah, v, 6.

OBS. 14.—Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."—See Guy's Gram., p. 21; Murray's, 180; Ingersoll's, 183; Fisk's, 123; Smith's, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in any sense, or under any construction, that will not, in every sense, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it."—Wright's Gram., p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, "