« 前へ次へ »
This form, it will readily be seen, not only allows of any required extension of these peculiar predicate elements, but also conforms exactly to both the conclusions of analysis, and the laws of the diagrams.
V.-For Transitive Verbs in Predicate.
(1). TRANSITIVE RELATIVE. Fifthly. Analysis reveals a distinction in transitive verbs, which has been too generally overlooked, and which the diagrams are capable of representing with great accuracy. Transitive verbs are not all active, and, consequently, cannot in diagram, be alike justly symbolized by forms like the following, in which the verb is transitive active :
There is an important class of verbs whose transitive force is purely relative. Suppose that we take the sentences,
It is becoming to her, and
He has a resemblance to you, Nothing can be clearer than that her and you are, in these examples, mere objects of relation. They would be so drawn in diagram. The idiom of the language, however, in another form of expression, finely contracts the
terms is becoming and has resemblance, into single verbs, and endows the verbs, with a transitive force, thus :
It becomes her, and
He resembles you. Inasmuch, however, as this transformation only transfers the objects from their dependence on the prepositions, to a dependence on the verbs, and endows those verbs with no active force whatever, it is still relation and not action which is affirmed, and the objects are still mere objects of an affirmed relation. Hence, such verbs as have, befits, becomes, resembles, costs, and sometimes envy, grudge, and teach, are in all such transitive forms, transitive relative, employed to affirm, not an act terminating on the object, but a relation concerning the obj
Accepting this distinction, and combining the established figures representing the verb and the preposition, so as to exhibit, at once, the force of both combined, we have clearly the following symbol for the transitive relative verb:
than which, nothing can, while representing the transitive force of the verb, more finely distinguish it as purely relative. A simple comparison of the figure, with that employed for the participle,-a verbal term including a relative absorbed into itself,—
will show, also, that the whole is so in harmony with the diagram system, that it is only strange that it has not appeared before.
VERBS IN PREDICATE. (2) But this distinction in transitive verbs leads to another fact, and gives rise to another form. Some transitive verbs are mixed in their nature, being, in certain cases, both active and relative. Thus, He taught me,
is transitive active, He taught grammar,
transitive relative, He taught me grammar,
transitive mixed. It cost him a dollar, and
I envy you your pleasure, are similar in their construction. For such examples, the following figure appears at once as the proper symbol.
Here me is presented as the direct object of the transitive active force of taught, and grammar as the indirect object of its transitive relative force, and precisely in accordance with the facts in analysis. And, not only is the true construction thus shown, but the simple stupidity of the old mode of parsing those terms, as in the distorted paraphrase, He taught grammar to me, is also clearly exposed and condemned. VI.-Complex Method for the Infinitive Phrase
Objective. Sixthly. The way is now open for the final disposition
of the infinitive phrase objective to which reference was made on page 104. Take once more the sentence,
I ordered him to go. In the light of the foregoing, it will be seen that ordered is a mixed transitive verb having both a transitive active and a transitive relative force. I ordered him actively ; I, also, ordered the going relatively; for it was concerning that act, that I ordered him. Thus far the diagram just given, is clearly applicable to the sentence,
I ordered him to go, him being the direct object of action, and to go being the indirect phrase object of relation. But to go, it must be observed, is a complex element, having a double office. It is, not only a relative object of ordered, but is also a verbal adjunct of him, its logical agent. To meet this double condition, the diagram must be distinctly adapted; and how easily it may be thus adapted, the following will show for itself.
VII.- For Imperative Verbs in Predicate.
Seventhly. For the peculiar phases of the imperative mode, insufficient provision has been made in the diagrams. In the case of the ordinary imperative, there is no difficulty. In examples like the following,
See thou to that,
the subjects thou and son, are disposed in diagram like the subjects of the other modes. Where both the nominal and pronominal subject are given, the Grammar provides for the construction of the nominal subject as an independent word, logical adjunct of the subject, see page 230, NOTE 1, Obs. 1. It may be questioned, however, whether the case is not more nearly one of a direct and indirect subject, identical, like the following:
to which, excepting in the mode, this next is not unlike.
John (indirect subject), go thou (thou direct subject).
(2). HORTATORY IMPERATIVE. (2) In the hortatory form of the imperative, as seen in the examples,
Let us go
Let us not do evil that good may come ; there is this peculiarity that let has no grammatical subject, and that its logical subject us is also its grammatical object. The ordinary diagrams do not indicate this peculiarity. The following is better,
In this, while a subject is suggested, it is marked, not as understood (which is a common and absurd method of treating it,) but as grammatically, though not logically, wanting. Go is here drawn as it is used, without a leader.