« 前へ次へ »
These forms are highly objectionable, because they do not conform to the general rule; they add to the complexity of the system; they do not distinguish the subsequents as full substantive or verbal terms; and they lead to bad practice in drawing.
THE ARGUMENT FROM DEPENDENCE ON RELATION, INVALID.
It may be urged that this form is used to distinguish subsequents of relation from objects of action as following transitive verbs and participles. But, in the first place, that is unnecessary; for, that these subsequents are objects of relation, is explicitly determined by the antecedent figure ; see like, like a spirit, &c., below.
In the second place, the objects of some transitive verts and participles are just as truly mere objects of relation and yet take the general form, see John, below.
But if the distinction is necessary in the phrase, it is as necessary in the sentence. It is, however, as has been suggested, necessary in neither. The proper and sufficient form is exhibited above in the subsequents, Java, peace, safety, dream and give. No other should be allowed.
4. GENERAL SUBSTANTIVE FIGURES.
Fourthly. It will have been seen by those using the grammar, that most substantive figures used to enclose complex elements, as in the case of the phrase subject, Taking a madman's sword, &c., the phrase object, his doing mischief, and the phrase subsequent, robbing him, in the following diagram, are incomplete. While,
can be regarded
for the sake of convenience in engraving, or want of room in the drawing, this may be allowed, it should be con
sidered an exceptional departure from the general law. Such figures should be drawn entire whenever the extent of the enclosed phrase or sentence does not forbid.
In several cases, as in the following diagram, and in
others on page 270, these substantive figures are drawn in dotted lines. This is an irregularity which the learner should not imitate. It is entirely inconsistent with both the laws of the diagrams, and the general practice of the Grammar.
5. IN CONNECTING LINES.
Fifthly. Lines for oblique connection are sometimes, (see Grammar, page 237, diagram at the bottom,) drawn as oblique right lines, instead of taking the waved form according to Rule sixth, page 71, and as exemplified on
Such lines are utterly objectionable. They are ungraceful, are bad practice in drawing, and encourage a careless, unsystematic habit in constructing diagrams, than which nothing can be more to be deprecated.
6. DOTTED LINES OF CONNECTION.
Sixthly. In one case, (see Grammar, page 42,) a dotted line of connection is used, which is objectionable. Such lines, if used at all, should be employed only to indicate semi-grammatical relations, that is, those which are neither purely logical, or independent, nor yet strictly grammatical, or dependent.
Again there are errors in the attaching or connecting of elements. First. Adjunct words and phrases, instead of being conformed to the third rule, page 65, are attached quite indiscriminately to any portion of the superior figure, left, middle, or right; see Benevolent, always, low, beneath, &c., scaling, &c, wheeling, &c.*
This mode of attaching adjuncts is neither systematic nor safe. In constructing diagrams, there must be a fixed place for every element, and it must be in its place, or the work will sooner or later become utterly confused and unintelligible.
In the example below, the adverb most must not be regarded as alike faulty with the foregoing adjuncts. It relates to true, and while attached centrally below, is yet at the extreme left of the adjective section of the predicate figure, where it belongs.
* This error is probably due to consulting convenience or econ. omy in engraving.
Secondly. In the case of the lines of connection for relative, or conjunctive adjectives, and for conjunctive adverbs, while the general waved form is preserved, the line is incorrectly attached below the connecting term, instead of to its upper side, or where that is impracticable, to one of its extremities. See whose, below; also, diagram, page 64 of the Grammar. For a correct connection, see where, second diagram, page 66, of the Grammar.
coffers the (gen
This mode of attaching the line to whose, is not only improper in form, but also implies a false construction, since attaching the line below, is affirming that whose is itself attended by a modifier. The line is also false in being dotted, instead of being continuous, for there is & complete grammatical dependence.
III.-Faulty Use of Supernumerary Lines. Thirdly. A final error in figures is to be found in the use of supernumerary lines of circumscription, employed to give a species of comprehensive connection of adjunct phrases and sentences, to the terms they modify. Examples will be found on pages 33, 36, 57, 62, 253, 254, and 269, of the Grammar.