Here is an other
fictitious and ambiguous example, in which the phrase, "_to know little_,"
is the subject of _makes_ understood. Nixon supposes the infinitive phrase
after _as_ to be always the subject of a finite verb _understood_ after it;
as, "An object so high as to be invisible _is_ or, _implies_." See _English
Parser_, p. 100.

[416] Dr. Crombie, after copying the substance of Campbell's second Canon,
that, "In doubtful cases _analogy_ should be regarded," remarks: "For the
same reason, '_it needs_' and '_he dares_,' are better than '_he need_' and
'_he dare._'"--_On Etym. and Synt._, p. 326. Dr. Campbell's language is
somewhat stronger: "In the verbs _to dare_ and _to need_, many say, in the
third person present singular, _dare_ and _need_, as 'he _need_ not go: he
_dare_ not do it.' Others say, _dares_ and _needs_. As the first usage is
_exceedingly irregular_, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could
authorize it."--_Philosophy of Rhet._, p. 175. _Dare_ for _dares_ I suppose
to be wrong; but if _need_ is an auxiliary of the potential mood, to use it
without inflection, is neither "irregular," nor at all inconsistent with
the foregoing canon. But the former critic notices these verbs a second
time, thus: "'He _dare_ not,' 'he _need_ not,' may be justly pronounced
_solecisms_, for 'he _dares_,' 'he _needs_.'"--_Crombie, on Etym. and
Synt._, p. 378. He also says, "The verbs _bid, dare, need, make, see, hear,
feel, let_, are _not_ followed by the sign of the infinitive."--_Ib._, p.
277. And yet he writes thus: "These are truths, of which, I am persuaded,
the author, to whom I allude, _needs_ not _to_ be reminded."--_Ib._, p.
123. So Dr. Bullions declares against _need_ in the singular, by putting
down the following example as bad English: "He _need_ not be in so much
haste."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 134. Yet he himself writes thus: "A name
more appropriate than the term _neuter, need_ not be desired."--_Ib._, p.
196. A school-boy may see the inconsistency of this.

[417] Some modern grammarians will have it, that a participle governed by a
preposition is a "_participial noun_;" and yet, when they come to parse an
adverb or an objective following, their "_noun_" becomes a "_participle_"
again, and _not_ a "_noun_." To allow words thus to _dodge_ from one class
to an other, is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among
those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I
th