by other phraseology that is in no respect anomalous.  Thus, for the examples above:  “Inattention to this rule, is the cause of a very common error.”—­“Polite is employed to signify a high degree of civilization;” or, “that they are highly civilized.”—­“One abhors debt.”—­“Who affected the fine gentleman so unmercifully.”—­“The minister’s partiality to the project, prolonged their debate.”—­“It finds [i.e., the mind finds,] that to act thus, would gratify one passion; and that not to act, or to act otherwise, would gratify another.”—­“But further, to cavil and object, upon any subject, is much easier than to clear up difficulties.”  Are not these expressions much better English than the foregoing quotations?  And if so, have we not reason to conclude that the adoption of participles in such instances is erroneous and ungrammatical?

OBS. 3.—­In Obs. 17th on Rule 4th, it was suggested, that in English the participle, without governing the possessive case, is turned to a greater number and variety of uses, than in any other language.  This remark applies mainly to the participle in ing.  Whether it is expedient to make so much of one sort of derivative, and endeavour to justify every possible use of it which can be plausibly defended, is a question well worthy of consideration.  We have already converted this participle to such a multiplicity of purposes, and into so many different parts of speech, that one can well-nigh write a chapter in it, without any other words.  This practice may have added something to the copiousness and flexibility of the language, but it certainly has a tendency to impair its strength and clearness.  Not every use of participles is good, for which there may be found precedents in good authors.  One may run to great excess in the adoption of such derivatives, without becoming absolutely unintelligible, and without violating any rule of our common grammars.  For example, I may say of somebody, “This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate.”  Now, in what other language than ours, can a string of words anything like the following, come so near to a fair and literal translation of this long sentence?  “This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.”  Here are not all the uses to which our writers apply the participle in ing, but there would seem to be enough, without adding others that are less proper.