It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb,--as _he strikes me_; _he wounds the enemy_.
It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.
The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may also be modal,--_I strike the enemy with the sword_=_ferio hostem gladio_.
The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,--_I walk with the stick_. When we say, _I walk the horse_, the word _walk_ has changed its meaning, and signifies _make to walk_, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a transitive verb.
The modal construction may also be called the _adverbial construction_; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,--_I fight with bravery_=_I fight bravely_: _he walks a king_=_he walks regally_. The modal (or adverbial) construction (or government) sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. Nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object: and {445} if there be no such object, there is no room for any objective government. _To break the sleep of the righteous_, is to _affect, by breaking, the sleep of the righteous_: but, _to sleep the sleep of the righteous_, is not to _affect by sleeping the sleep of the righteous_; since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is a _state_. We may, indeed, give it the appearance of a transitive verb, as we do when we say, _the opiate slept the patient_, meaning thereby, _lulled to sleep_; but the transitive character is only apparent.
_To sleep the sleep of the righteous_ is to _sleep in agreement with_--or _according to_--or _after the manner of_--_the sleep of the righteous_, and the construction is adverbial.
In the grammars of the cla.s.sical languages, the following rule is exceptionable--_Quodvis verb.u.m admitt.i.t accusativum nominis sibi cognati_.
It does so; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally.
-- 559. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following four:--
1. _Appositional._--As, _she walks a queen_: _you consider me safe_. The appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section.
2. _Traditive._--As, _I give the book to you_=_do librum tibi_. _I teach you the lesson_=[Greek: didasko se ten didaskalian]. In all traditive expressions there are three ideas; (1.) an agent, (2.) an object, (3.) a person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted: since in Greek and some other languages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative case.
3. _Instrumental._--As, _I fight with a sword_=_pugno ense_=_feohte sweorde_,--Anglo-Saxon.
4. _Emphatic._--As, _he sleeps the sleep of the righteous_.
-- 560. _Verb and nominative case._--No verb governs a nominative case. The appositional construction _seems_ to require such a form of government; but the form is only apparent. {446}
It is I.
It is thou.
It is he, &c.
Here, although the word _is_ is _followed_ by a nominative case, it by no means governs one--at least not as a verb.
It has been stated above that the so-called verb substantive is only a verb for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb, _i. e._, the copula.
Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions like _it is I_, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the previous examples the words _it_, _is_, and _I_, were, respectively, _subject_, _copula_, and _predicate_; and, as it is the function of the copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two parts of a proposition.
Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only.
1. It has no necessary concord in gender--_she is a man in courage_--_he is a woman in effeminacy_--_it is a girl_.
2. It has no necessary concord in number--_sin is the wages of death_--_it is these that do the mischief_.
3. It has no necessary concord in person--_I am he whom you mean_.
4. It _has_, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative case can, by itself, const.i.tute a term of either kind--subject or predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently, both in the same case. Expressions like _this is for me_ are elliptic. The logical expression is _this is a thing for me_.
_Rule._--The predicate must be of the same case with its subject.
Hence--The copula instead of determining[60] a case expresses a concord.
{447}
_Rule 1._--All words connected with a nominative case by the copula (_i.e._, the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative.--_It is I_; _I am safe_.
_Rule 2._--All words in apposition with a word so connected must be nominative.--It is difficult to ill.u.s.trate this from the English language from our want of inflexions. In Latin, however, we say _vocor Johannes_=_I am called John_, not _vocor Johannem_. Here the logical equivalent is _ego sum vocatus Johannes_--where--
1. _Ego_, is nominative because it is the subject.
2. _Vocatus_ is nominative because it is the predicate agreeing with the subject.
3. _Johannes_, is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in apposition with _vocatus_.
N.B. Although in precise language _Johannes_ is said to agree with _vocatus_ rather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement the apposition of adjectives.
_Rule 3._--All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle, have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the same condition as simple copulas--_she walks a queen_=_she is walking a queen_=_illa est incedens regina_.
_Rule 4._--The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the conjunction _that_, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition.
This rule determines the propriety of the expression--_I believe that it is he_ as opposed to the expression _I believe that it is him_.
_I believe_=_I am believing_, and forms one proposition.
_It is he_, forms a second.
_That_, connects the two; but belongs to neither.
{448}
Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate.
N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction _that_ is not used), as to the greater propriety of the two expressions--_I believe it to be him_--_I believe it to be he_--has yet to be considered.
-- 561. _The verb and genitive case._--No verb in the present English governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did: _e.g._, _verbs of ruling_ and others--_weolde thises middangeardes_=_he ruled_ (_wealded_) _this earth"s_. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in Latin and Greek. _To eat of the fruit of the tree_ is no genitive construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. _Fruit_ is in the objective case, and is governed not by the verb but by the preposition _of_.
-- 562. _The verb and accusative._--All transitive verbs govern an accusative case,--_he strikes me_, _thee_, _him_, _her_, _it_, _us_, _you_, _them_.
_The verb and dative case._--The word _give_, and a few others, govern a dative case. Phrases like _give it him_, _whom shall I give it_, are perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional construction _give it_ to _him_,--_to whom shall I give it?_ is unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the adjective _like_.
-- 563. _The part.i.tive construction._--Certain transitive verbs, the action whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object, are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. _To eat of the fruit of the tree_=_to eat a part_ (or _some_) _of the fruit of the tree_: _to drink of the water of the well_=_to drink a part_ (or _some_) _of the water of the well_. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of the words _part_ (or _some_). The construction is a construction that has grown out of the part.i.tive power of the genitive case; for which case the preposition _of_, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent.
-- 564. It has been already stated that forms like _I believe_ {449} _it to be him_, and forms like _I believe it to be he_, had not been investigated.
Of these, the former is, logically, correct.
Here, the word, _to be_, is, in respect to its power, a noun.
As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb _believe_.
With this accusative infinitive, _it_ agrees, as being part of the same complex idea. And _him_ does the same.