it be proper to use nouns in that manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered the leading word in sense, we are at least under no necessity of subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought desirable to vary the foregoing example, it may easily be done, thus: "There is no more of moral principle to prevent abolitionists from nominating their own candidates, than to prevent them from voting for those nominated by others." The following example is much like the preceding, but less justifiable: "We see comfort, security, strength, pleasure, wealth, and prosperity, all flowing from men combining together; and misery, weakness, and poverty, ensuing from their acting separately or in opposition to each other."--West's Letters, p. 133. Say rather,--"from men's combining-together," or, "from the just combination of men in society;" and,--"from their separate action, or their opposition to one an other." Take an other example: "If illorum be governed here of negotii, it must be in this order, gratia negotii illorum videndi; and this is, for the sake of their business being seen, and not, for the sake of them being seen."--Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 352. Here the learned critic, in disputing Perizonius's resolution of the phrase, "illorum videndi gratiâ" has written disputable English. But, had he affected the Latin idiom, a nearer imitation of it would have been,--"for the sake of their business's being seen, and not for the sake of their being seen." Or nearer still,--"for the sake of seeing of their business, and not, for the sake of seeing of them." An elegant writer would be apt to avoid all these forms, and say,--"for the sake of seeing their business;" and,--"for the sake of seeing them;" though the former phrase, being but a version of bad Latin, makes no very good sense in any way.
OBS. 41.--Idioms, or peculiarities of expression, are never to be approved or valued, but according to their convenience, utility, or elegance. By this rule, some phrases that are not positively barbarous, may yet be ungrammatical, and a construction that is sometimes allowable, may yet be quite unworthy to be made or reckoned, "the common mode of expression." Thus, in Latin, the infinitive verb is occasionally put for a noun, and taken to signify a property possessed; as, "Tuum scire, [thy to know,] the same as tua scientia, thy knowledge. Pers."--Adam's Gram., p. 153. So, in English, the participle in ing is often taken substantively, when it does not actually become a substantive or noun; as, "Thy knowing this,"--"Our doing so."--West. Such forms of speech, because they are idiomatical, seldom admit of any literal translation, and are never naturalized by any transfer from one language or dialect into an other; nor is it proper for grammarians to justify them, in vernacular speech, except as figures or anomalies that ought not to be generally imitated. It cannot be truly affirmed, that the genius of our language ever requires that participles, as such, should assume the relations of a noun, or govern the possessive case; nor, on the other hand, can it be truly denied, that very excellent and learned writers do sometimes make use of such phraseology. Without disrespect to the many users and approvers of these anomalies, I set down for bad English every mixed construction of the participle, for which the language can furnish an equivalent expression that is more simple and more elegant. The extent to which these comparative barbarisms now abound in English books, and the ridiculous fondness for them, which has been shown by some writers on English grammar, in stead of amounting to any argument in their favour, are in fact, plain proofs of the necessity of an endeavour to arrest so obvious and so pernicious an innovation.
OBS. 42.--A late author observes as follows: "That the English gerund, participle, or verbal noun, in ing, has both an active and a passive signification, there can be little doubt.[424] Whether the Latin gerund has precisely a similar import, or whether it is only active, it may be difficult, and, indeed, after all, it is not of much moment, to ascertain."--Grant's Latin Gram., p. 234. The gerund in Latin most commonly governs the case of its own verb, as does the active participle, both in Latin and English: as, "Efferor studio patres vestros videndi. Cic. de sen. 23."--Lily's Gram., p. 96. That is, "I am transported, with a desire of seeing your fathers." But sometimes we find the gerund taken substantively and made to govern the genitive. Or,--to adopt the language of an old grammarian:--"Interdum non invenustè additur gerundiis in di etiam genitivus pluralis: ut, 'Quum illorum videndi gratiâ me in forum contulissem.'--'Novarum [qui] spectandi faciunt copiam.' Ter. Heaut. prol. 29."--Lily's Gram., p. 97. That is, "To gerunds in di there is sometimes not inelegantly added a genitive plural: as, 'When, for the sake of seeing of them, I went into the forum.'--'Who present an opportunity of attending of new ones:' i.e., new comedies." Here the of which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers do now and then adopt this idiom. The gerund thus governing the genitive, is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for the subject of the
