NOTE III.—­When the insertion of the word of, to complete the conversion of the transitive participle into a noun, produces ambiguity or harshness, some better phraseology must be chosen.  Example:  “Because the action took place prior to the taking place of the other past action.”—­Kirkham’s Gram., p. 140.  Here the words prior and place have no regular construction; and if we say, “prior to the taking of place of the other,” we make the jumble still worse.  Say therefore, “Because the action took place before the other past action;”—­or, “Because the action took place previously to the other past action.”

NOTE IV.—­When participles become nouns, their adverbs should either become adjectives, or be taken as parts of such nouns, written as compound words:  or, if neither of these methods be agreeable, a greater change should be made.  Examples of error:  1. “Rightly understanding a sentence, depends very much on a knowledge of its grammatical construction.”—­Comly’s Gram., 12th Ed., p. 8.  Say, “The right understanding of a sentence,” &c. 2.  “Elopement is a running away, or private departure.”—­Webster’s El.  Spelling-Book. p. 102.  Write “running-away” as one word. 3.  “If they [Milton’s descriptions] have any faults, it is their alluding too frequently to matters of learning, and to fables of antiquity.”—­Blair’s Rhet., p. 451.  Say, “If they have any fault, it is that they allude too frequently,” &c.

NOTE V.—­When the participle is followed by an adjective, its conversion into a noun appears to be improper; because the construction of the adjective becomes anomalous, and its relation doubtful:  as, “When we speak of ’ambition’s being restless’ or, ’a disease’s being deceitful.’”—­Murray’s Gram., Vol. i, p. 346; Kirkham’s, p. 224.  This ought to be, “When we speak of ambition as being restless, or a disease as being deceitful;” but Dr. Blair, from whom the text originally came, appears to have written it thus:  “When we speak of ambition’s being restless, or a disease being deceitful.”—­LECT. xvi, p. 155.  This is inconsistent with itself; for one noun is possessive, and the other, objective.  NOTE VI.—­When a compound participle is converted into a noun, the hyphen seems to be necessary, to prevent ambiguity; but such compound nouns are never elegant, and it is in general better to avoid them, by some change in the expression.  Example:  “Even as the being healed of a wound, presupposeth the plaster or salve:  but not, on the contrary; for the application of the plaster presupposeth not the being healed.”—­Barclays Works, Vol. i, p. 143.  The phrase, “the being healed” ought to mean only, the creature healed; and not, the being-healed, or the healing received, which is what the writer intended.  But the simple word healing might have been used in the latter sense; for, in participial nouns, the distinction of voice and of tense are commonly disregarded.