action, convey an idea of the agent."--Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 70; Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 353. "The reading of Cicero," does not necessarily signify an action of which Cicero is the agent, as Crombie, Churchill, and Hiley choose to expound it; and, since the gerundive construction of words in ing ought to have a definite reference to the agent or subject of the action or being, one may perhaps amend even some of their own phraseology above, by preferring the participial noun: as, "No mistake can arise from the using of either form."--"And riches [turn our thoughts too much] upon the enjoying of our superfluities."--"Even when no mistake could arise from the interchanging of them." Where the agent of the action plainly appears, the gerundive form is to be preferred on account of its brevity; as, "By the observing of truth, you will command respect;" or, "By observing truth, &c."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 189. Here the latter phraseology is greatly preferable, though this author did not perceive it. "I thought nothing was to be done by me before the giving of you thanks."--Walker's Particles, p. 63. Say,--"before giving you thanks;" for otherwise the word thanks has no proper construction, the pronoun alone being governed by of--and here again is an error; for "you" ought to be the object of to.
OBS. 46.--In Hiley's Treatise, a work far more comprehensive than the generality of grammars, "the established principles and best usages of the English" Participle are so adroitly summed up, as to occupy only two pages, one in Etymology, and an other in Syntax. The author shows how the participle differs from a verb, and how from an adjective; yet he neither makes it a separate part of speech, nor tells us with what other it ought to be included. In lieu of a general rule for the parsing of all participles, he presents the remark, "Active transitive participles, like their verbs, govern the objective case; as, 'I am desirous of hearing him;' 'Having praised them, he sat down.'"--Hiley's Gram., p. 93. This is a rule by which one may parse the few objectives which are governed by participles; but, for the usual construction of participles themselves, it is no rule at all; neither does the grammar, full as it is, contain any. "Hearing" is here governed by of, and "Having praised" relates to he; but this author teaches neither of these facts, and the former he expressly contradicts by his false definition of a preposition. In his first note, is exhibited, in two parts, the false and ill-written rule which Churchill quotes from Crombie. (1.) "When the noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing something, the participle must have an article before it, and the preposition of after it; as, 'In the hearing of the philosopher;' or, 'In the philosopher's hearing;' 'By the preaching of Christ;' or, 'By Christ's preaching.' In these instances," says Hiley, "the words hearing and preaching are substantives." If so, he ought to have corrected this rule, which twice calls them participles; but, in stead of doing that, he blindly adds, by way of alternative, two examples which expressly contradict what the rule asserts. (2.) "But when the noun represents the object of an action, the article and the preposition of must be omitted; as, 'In hearing the philosopher.'"--Ib., p. 94. If this principle is right, my second note below, and most of the corrections under it, are wrong. But I am persuaded that the adopters of this rule did not observe how common is the phraseology which it condemns; as, "For if the casting-away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"--Rom., xi, 15. Finally, this author rejects the of which most critics insert when a possessive precedes the verbal noun; justifies and prefers the mixed or double construction of the participle; and, consequently, neither wishes nor attempts to distinguish the participle from the verbal noun. Yet he does not fail to repeat, with some additional inaccuracy, the notion, that, "What do you think of my horse's running? is different to [say from,] What do you think of my horse running?"--Ib., p. 94.
OBS. 47.--That English books in general, and the style of even our best writers, should seldom be found exempt from errors in the construction of participles, will not be thought wonderful, when we consider the multiplicity of uses to which words of this sort are put, and the strange inconsistencies into which all our grammarians have fallen in treating this part of syntax. It is useless, and worse than useless, to teach for grammar any thing that is not true; and no doctrine can be true of which one part palpably oversets an other. What has been taught on the present topic, has led me into a multitude of critical remarks, designed both for the refutation of the principles which I reject, and for the elucidation and defence of those which are presently to be summed up in notes, or special rules, for the correction of false syntax. If my decisions do not agree with the teaching of our common grammarians, it is chiefly because these authors contradict themselves. Of this sort of teaching I shall here offer but one example more, and then bring these strictures to a close: "When present participles are preceded by an article, or pronoun adjective, they become nouns, and must not be followed by objective pronouns, or nouns without a preposition; as, the reading of many books wastes the health. But such nouns, like all others, may be used without an article, being sufficiently discovered by the following preposition; as, he was sent to prepare the way, by preaching of repentance. Also an article, or pronoun adjective, may precede a clause, used as a noun, and commencing with a participle; as, his teaching children was necessary."--Dr. Wilson's Syllabus of English Gram., p. xxx. Here the last position of the learned doctor, if it be true, completely annuls the first; or, if the first be true, the last must needs be false, And, according to Lowth, L. Murray, and many others, the second is as bad as either. The bishop says, concerning this very example, that by the use of the preposition of after the participle preaching, "the phrase is rendered obscure and ambiguous: for the obvious meaning of it, in its present form, is, 'by preaching concerning repentance, or on that subject;' whereas the sense intended is, 'by publishing the covenant of repentance, and declaring repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God.'"--Lowth's Gram., p. 82. "It ought to be, 'by the preaching of repentance;' or, by preaching repentance."--Murray's Gram., p. 193.
