urchill's New Gram., p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is a mere mode of the verb is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."--Ib., p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a noun: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking s at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has the comings in of a prince, may be ruined by his own gaming, or his wife's squandering.'"--Ib., p. 144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the s, not at the end, but in the middle; for comings-in, (an obsolete expression for revenues,) is not two words, but one. Nor are gaming and squandering, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles become nouns when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "is" and "may be" are not nouns, but participles: "Walking is the best exercise, though riding may be more pleasant."--Ib., p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguishing of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.
OBS. 26.--Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's--and no worse than what the reader may find in many an English Grammar now in use. This author's fault is not so much a lack of learning or of comprehension, as of order and discrimination. We see in him, that it is possible for a man to be well acquainted with English authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter miserably in describing the nature and uses of the English participle. Like many others, he does not acknowledge this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but commences his account of it by the following absurdity: "The participles are adjectives derived from the verb; as, pursuing, pursued, having pursued."--Elements of E. Gram., p. 62. This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but merges the whole of the former species in a part of speech of which he had not even recognized the latter as a subdivision: "An adjective shows the quality of a thing. Adjectives may be reduced to five classes: 1. Common--2. Proper--3. Numeral--4. Pronominal--5. Compound."--Ib., p. 47. Now, if "participles are adjectives," to which of these five classes do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth class, without which this distribution is false and incomplete: as, "a loving father; an approved copy." The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun. But says our author, "Participles, as simple adjectives, belong to a noun; as, a loving father; an approved copy;--as parts of the verb, they have the same government as their verbs have; as, his father, recalling the pleasures of past years, joined their party."--Ib., p. 170. What confusion is this! a complete jumble of adjectives, participles, and "parts of verbs!" Again: "Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early rising is conducive to health; I like writing; we depend on seeing you."--Ib., p. 171. Here rising and writing are nouns; but seeing is a participle, because it is active and governs you, Compare this second jumble with the definition above. Again he proceeds: "To participles thus used, many of our best authors prefix the article; as, 'The being chosen did not prevent disorderly behaviour.' Bp. Tomline. 'The not knowing how to pass our vacant hours.' Seed."--Ib., p. 171. These examples I take to be bad English. Say rather, "The state of election did not prevent disorderly behaviour."--"The want of some
