one, “in building,” he palpably contradicts his own position!  But he proceeds, in a note, thus:  “The form of expression, is being built, is being committed, &c., is almost universally condemned by grammarians; but it is sometimes met with in respectable writers.  It occurs most frequently in newspaper paragraphs, and in hasty compositions.”—­Ibid. Wells comments thus:  “Different opinions have long existed among critics respecting this passive use of the imperfect participle.  Many respectable writers substitute the compound passive participle; as, ‘The house is being built;’ ’The book is being printed.’  But the prevailing practice of the best authors is in favor of the simple form; as, ‘The house is building.’”—­Wells’s School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 148; 113th Ed., p. 161.[273]

OBS. 28.—­S.  W. Clark, in the second edition of his Practical Grammar, stereotyped and published in New York in 1848, appears to favour the insertion of “being” into passive verbs; but his instructions are so obscure, so often inaccurate, and so incompatible one with an other, that it is hard to say, with certainty, what he approves.  In one place, he has this position:  “The Passive Voice of a verb is formed by adding the Passive Participle of that verb, to the verb be.  EXAMPLES—­To be loved.  I am feared.  They are worshipped.”—­Page 69.  In an other, he has this:  “When the Subject is to be represented as receiving the action, the Passive Participle should be used.  EXAMPLE—­Henry’s lesson is BEING RECITED.”—­P. 132.  Now these two positions utterly confound each other; for they are equally general, and “the Passive Participle” is first one thing, and then an other.  Again, he has the following assertions, both false:  “The Present (or First) Participle always ends in ing, and is limited to the Active Voice.  The Past (or Second) Participle of Regular Verbs ends in d or ed, and is limited to the Passive Voice.”—­P. 131.  Afterwards, in spite of the fancied limitation, he acknowledges the passive use of the participle in ing, and that there is “authority” for it; but, at the same time, most absurdly supposes the word to predicate “action,” and also to be wrong:  saying, “Action is sometimes predicated of a passive subject.  EXAMPLE—­’The house is building,.. for..  ’The house is being built,’.. which means..  The house is becoming built.”  On this, he remarks thus:  “This is one of the instances in which Authority is against Philosophy.  For an act cannot properly be predicated of a passive agent.  Many good writers properly reject this idiom.  ’Mansfield’s prophecy is being realized.’—­MICHELET’S LUTHER.”—­Clark’s Practical Gram., p. 133.  It may require some study to learn from this which idiom it is. that these “many good writers reject:”  but the grammarian who can talk of “a passive agent,” without perceiving that the phrase is self-contradictory and absurd, may well be expected to entertain a “Philosophy” which is against “Authority,” and likewise to prefer a ridiculous innovation to good and established usage.