actual adverb in 'The rose smells sweetly' is strictly correct; and The rose smells sweet' may also be defended on the ground we have taken.

24. A similar distinction must be observed in the use of participles. Let us consider this sentence.

The messenger came running.

Here, if running be taken adverbially, the meaning is, that 'the messenger came at a running pace.' But if it be taken as a participle, it means 'the messenger came, and he ran as he came.'

Take these lines:

The church of the village

Stood gleaming white in the morning sheen.

The words gleaming white express the notion of the Latin candidus; * they do not tell us the manner in which the church stood, but the colour and appearance of the church itself. We may consider that gleaming qualifies the adjective white, and that the term gleaming white is a predicate-nominative.

It is difficult to decide whether the perfect participle active should be taken adverbially as qualifying the predicate-verb, or be regarded as completing or filling up the predicate. No doubt, in the sentence William, having conquered Harold, ascended the throne,' the participle explains at what time, and after what action, William ascended the throne. But, as before remarked, we might turn the sentence thus: 'William conquered Harold, and ascended the throne.' On the whole, I am inclined to consider having conquered' as a kind of predicate-nominative. See § 4.

25. We have next to discuss adverbial phrases, as qualifying predicate-verbs.

1. A preposition, with the substantive which it governs, may be used adverbially: as,

The enemy advanced with boldness.

Here the phrase 'with boldness' is equivalent to the adverb 'boldly.'

This will furnish us with a rule for the use of that unfortunate adverb otherwise, which is very unfairly treated by careless writers. The word means 'in another manner,' and ought never to be employed except as an adverb, and in phrases

Compare candidus, brilliant white,' with albus, dead white;' and niger, 'jet black,' with ater, 'dull black.'

where 'in another manner,' 'in another way,' or words to that effect, might stand in its room. 'Whoever is found in this domain, breaking fences, stealing nuts, or otherwise, will be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law.' Here 'otherwise' is used as the equivalent of a participle; and it is evident that 'stealing nuts or in another manner' makes absolute nonsense. If the caution had been worded 'stealing nuts or otherwise trespassing,' it would have signified stealing nuts, or trespassing in any other way,' which is intelligible enough; for there may be many other acts of trespass beside breaking fences and stealing nuts.

6

26.-2. Substantives are often used adverbially to denote the time when, the manner how, or the attendant circumstances.

Since we have lost the dative (or ablative) cases of our noun-substantives, there is no form left to distinguish constructions of this kind; so that a knowledge of syntax is our only guide.

The letters came every day.

The vessels sailed every week.
They fought hand to hand.

But the construction is explained by observing that, in similar instances, prepositions are employed:

They travel by day.
We fly by night.

In ordinary English, yesterday, last night, &c., are used adverbially; but in Cork we constantly hear on yesterday, on last night, and even on to-morrow, where there is a needless accumulation of prepositions.

In the phrases 'once a week,' 'sixpence a pound,' it is a doubtful point whether the word a is the indefinite article, or a remnant of the Anglo-Saxon preposition an, which signifies 'in,' 'on.' See § 304.

27.-3. Under the head of adverbial phrases, we may mention the construction whereby a substantive (noun or pronoun) and a participle are used absolutely, to mark the time, the circumstances, &c.: as,

This said, they both betook them several ways.
Milton, Paradise Lost, x. 610.

With that she fell distract,

And, her attendants absent, swallowed fire.

Julius Cæsar, iv. 3.

This construction has been called the 'nominative absolute,'
or by others the 'case absolute.' Dr. Adams prefers to call it
thedative absolute.' He says, after citing the instances just
quoted, that the words marked in italics 'have no grammatical
connection with the rest of the sentence: i. e., are not governed
by any word or words in the sentence to which they are at-
tached, and are therefore called Datives Absolute, or Detached
Datives. In Latin, the ablative is employed in these detached
or absolute phrases; in Greek, the genitive; and in Anglo-
Saxon, the dative. This A.-S. dative was the origin of the
absolute construction in English. Most grammarians, since the
case-endings are lost, prefer to call these words nominatives.
But the loss of a suffix cannot convert one case into another.
The meaning conveyed by these absolute words cannot be ex-
pressed by a true nominative.'-Adams, Elements, § 493.
In support of this view, we may take the instance quoted
by Dr. Adams from Milton:

And, him destroyed,
Or won to what may work his utter loss,
For whom all this was made, all this will soon
Follow, as to him linked in weal or woe.

Paradise Lost, ix. 130-3

To which we may add, from the same poet,

-by whose aid

This inaccessible high strength, the seat

Of Deity supreme, us dispossessed,

He trusted to have seized.-Ibid. vii. 140-3.

This proves that Milton, at all events, thought the construction demanded an oblique case, that is, some case other than the nominative. But Milton was a learned poet, and here, as elsewhere, he may have been imitating the Latin or Greek.

As the point is doubtful in English, we may be content to employ the term Case Absolute in reference to these constructions, leaving the particular case an open question. But in practice we should be very careful in using this construction, especially at the beginning of a sentence. For the reader may

mistake the noun used absolutely, thinking it a subject-nominative; and presently, when the true subject-nominative is introduced, like the true Amphitryon in the play, it appears that another has usurped his place.

28. The following classification of adverbs and adverbial phrases may be useful :

Many of the adverbs may have their places supplied by an adverbial or prepositional phrase—

29. 'Sometimes the Infinitive is the Nominative case to the Verb,' said the old rule. In truth, the Infinitive is a Verbal Substantive, and is used sometimes as a nominative, sometimes as an objective.

But in the English language this point is attended with peculiar difficulties, arising from the fact that our grammatical forms have been subject to various changes, and that the origin of those forms has sometimes been forgotten or obscured.

The first thing, therefore, is to inquire, what is the English infinitive?

If we are asked what is the infinitive of the verb love, we answer to love, and we call to the 'sign' of the infinitive.

But here, at the very outset, we must make a distinction, which is of great importance. Sometimes, indeed, to is a mere sign of the infinitive, and may be omitted in certain

instances. For example, we say 'He dares to go,' and 'He dares not go.' After many auxiliaries it is usual to omit the sign to; and so also after other verbs, as bid, make. They bid him come,' 'They make him leap;' where come and leap are infinitives dependent upon the governing verbs 'bid' and 'make.'

In older English there are variations both ways; our forefathers sometimes omitted the sign where we use it, and used the sign where we omit it.

So Shakespeare:

You ought not walk.

and on the other hand,

Julius Cæsar, i. 1.

I durst, my lord, to wager she is honest.

Othello, iv. 2. There are also many varieties in provincial dialects; in some counties we may hear 'They helped him mow the grass,' for 'to mow.'

30. But, in many other instances, the word to, so far from being a mere sign, is a true preposition, meaning in order to; as, 'He came to see me,' that is, in order to see me,' or 'for the purpose of seeing me.' This distinction is to be carefully remembered when we are translating from English into other languages. When to is a mere sign, we may generally render the verb by the Latin infinitive. But it is a gross error to do so where to signifies in order to; in such instances we must employ the preposition ad with a gerund, or with a noun coupled with the participle in -dus, or we must use ut with a verb in the subjunctive mood.

At one period in the history of the language our forefathers forgot the original force of the preposition to in these constructions, and inserted an additional preposition for; as,

What went ye out for to see?

Matthew, xi. 8.

In some parts of the country similar phrases are even yet occasionally heard; and sometimes for is employed before the sign to, where there is not even the shadow of an excuse to justify it; as, 'He told me for to do it.'

31. But in English we have another form of the infinitive in -ing, the same in sound and spelling as the present par ticiple. Thus instead of saying 'to see is to believe,' we generally say 'seeing is believing.' In like manner 'it is healthful to rise early,' may be expressed 'rising early is healthful.'