constructions in which the participle is made a half-noun in English.  It is true, the gerund of the nominative case may be made the subject of a verb in Latin; but we do not translate it by the English participle, but rather by the infinitive, or still oftener by the verb with the auxiliary must:  as, “Vivendum est mihi recte, I must live well.”—­Grant’s L. Gram., p. 232.  This is better English than the nearer version, “Living correctly is necessary for me;” and the exact imitation, “Living is to me correctly,” is nonsense.  Nor does the Latin gerund often govern the genitive like a noun, or ever stand as the direct object of a transitive verb, except in some few doubtful instances about which the grammarians dispute.  For, in fact, to explain this species of words, has puzzled the Latin grammarians about as much as the English; though the former do not appear to have fallen into those palpable self-contradictions which embarrass the instructions of the latter.

OBS. 22.—­Dr. Adam says, “The gerund in English becomes a substantive, by prefixing the article to it, and then it is always to be construed with the preposition of; as, ‘He is employed in writing letters,’ or, ’in the writing of letters:’  but it is improper to say, ’in the writing letters,’ or, ‘in writing of letters.’”—­Latin and English Gram., p. 184.  This doctrine is also taught by Lowth, Priestley, Murray, Comly, Chandler, and many others; most of whom extend the principle to all participles that govern the possessive case; and they might as well have added all such as are made either the subjects or the objects of verbs, and such as are put for nominatives after verbs neuter.  But Crombie, Allen, Churchill, S. S. Greene, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and some others, teach that participles may perform these several offices of a substantive, without dropping the regimen and adjuncts of participles.  This doctrine, too, Murray and his copyists absurdly endeavour to reconcile with the other, by resorting to the idle fiction of “substantive phrases” endued with all these powers:  as, “His being at enmity with Caesar was the cause of perpetual discord.”—­Crombie’s Treatise, p. 237; Churchill’s Gram., p. 141.  “Another fault is allowing it to supersede the use of a point.”—­ Churchill’s Gram., p. 372.  “To be sure there is a possibility of some ignorant reader’s confounding the two vowels in pronunciation.”—­Ib., p. 375.  It is much better to avoid all such English as this.  Say, rather, “His enmity with Caesar was the cause of perpetual discord.”—­“An other fault is the allowing of it to supersede the use of a point.”—­“To be sure, there is a possibility that some ignorant reader may confound the two vowels, in pronunciation.”