Part 3 — CHAPTER VI.—VERBS. (continued 2)

OBS. 16.—There are several different opinions as to what constitutes the grammatical subject of the verb in any ordinary English expression of multiplication. Besides this, we have some variety in the phraseology which precedes the verb; so that it is by no means certain, either that the multiplying terms are always of the same part of speech, or that the true nominative to the verb is not essentially different in different examples. Some absurdly teach, that an abstract number is necessarily expressed by "a singular noun," with only a singular meaning; that such a number, when multiplied, is always, of itself the subject of the assertion; and, consequently, that the verb must be singular, as agreeing only with this "singular noun." Others, not knowing how to parse separately the multiplying word or words and the number multiplied, take them both or all together as "the grammatical subject" with which the verb must agree. But, among these latter expounders, there are two opposite opinions on the very essential point, whether this "entire expression" requires a singular verb or a plural one:—as, whether we ought to say, "Twice one is two," or, "Twice one are two;"—"Twice two is four," or, "Twice two are four;"—"Three times one is three," or, "Three times one are three;"—"Three times three is nine," or, "Three times three are nine." Others, again, according to Dr. Bullions, and possibly according to their own notion, find the grammatical subject, sometimes, if not generally, in the multiplying term only; as, perhaps, is the case with those who write or speak as follows: "If we say, 'Three times one are three,' we make 'times' the subject of the verb."—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 39. "Thus, 2 times 1 are 2; 2 times 2 are four; 2 times 3 are 6."—Chase's C. S. Arith., p. 43. "Say, 2 times O are O; 2 times 1 are 2."—Robinson's American Arith., 1825, p. 24.

OBS. 17.—Dr. Bullions, with a strange blunder of some sort in almost every sentence, propounds and defends his opinion on this subject thus: "Numeral adjectives, being also names of numbers, are often used as nouns, and so have the inflection and construction of nouns: thus, by twos, by tens, by fifties. Two is an even number. Twice two is four. Four is equal to twice two. In some arithmetics the language employed in the operation of multiplying—such as 'Twice two are four, twice three are six'—is incorrect. It should be, 'Twice two is four,' &c.; for the word two is used as a singular noun—the name of a number. The adverb 'twice' is not in construction with it, and consequently does not make it plural. The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.' For the same reason we should say, 'Three times two is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times is six.' If we say, 'Three times one are three,' we make 'times' the subject of the verb, whereas the subject of the verb really is 'one,' and 'times' is in the objective of number (§828). 2:4:: 6:12, should be read, 'As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;' not 'As two are to four, so are six to twelve.' But when numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction."—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 39.

OBS. 18.—Since nouns and adjectives are different parts of speech, the suggestion, that, "Numeral adjectives are also names, or nouns," is, upon the very face of it, a flat absurdity; and the notion that "the name of a number" above unity, conveys only and always the idea of unity, like an ordinary "singular noun," is an other. A number in arithmetic is most commonly an adjective in grammar; and it is always, in form, an expression that tells how many, or—"denotes how many things are spoken of."—Chase, p. 11. But the name of a number is also a number, whenever it is not made plural in form. Thus four is a number, but fours is not; so ten is a number, but tens is not. Arithmetical numbers, which run on to infinity, severally consist of a definite idea of how many; each is a precise count by the unit; one being the beginning of the series, and the measure of every successive step. Grammatical numbers are only the verbal forms which distinguish one thing from more of the same sort. Thus the word fours or tens, unless some arithmetical number be prefixed to it, signifies nothing but a mere plurality which repeats indefinitely the collective idea of four or ten.

OBS. 19.—All actual names of numbers calculative, except one, (for naught, though it fills a place among numbers, is, in itself, a mere negation of number; and such terms as oneness, unity, duality, are not used in calculation,) are collective nouns—a circumstance which seems to make the discussion of the present topic appropriate to the location which is here given it under Rule 15th. Each of them denotes a particular aggregate of units. And if each, as signifying one whole, may convey the idea of unity, and take a singular verb; each, again, as denoting so many units, may quite as naturally take a plural verb, and be made to convey the idea of plurality. For the mere abstractness of numbers, or their separation from all "particular objects," by no means obliges us to limit them always to the construction with verbs singular. If it is right to say, "Two is an even number;" it is certainly no error to say, "Two are an even number." If it is allowable to say, "As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;" it is as well, if not better, to say, "As two are to four, so are six to twelve." If it is correct to say, "Four is equal to twice two;" it is quite as grammatical to say, "Four are equal to twice two." Bullions bids say, "Twice two is four," and, "Three times two is six;" but I very much prefer to say, "Twice two are four," and, "Three times two are six." The Doctor's reasoning, whereby he condemns the latter phraseology, is founded only upon false assumptions. This I expect to show; and more—that the word which he prefers, is wrong.

OBS. 20.—As to what constitutes the subject of the verb in multiplication, I have already noticed three different opinions. There are yet three or four more, which must not be overlooked in a general examination of this grammatical dispute. Dr. Bullions's notion on this point, is stated with so little consistency, that one can hardly say what it is. At first, he seems to find his nominative in the multiplicand, "used as a singular noun;" but, when he ponders a little on the text, "Twice two is four," he finds the leading term not to be the word "two," but the word "number," understood. He resolves, indeed, that no one of the four words used, "is in construction with" any of the rest; for he thinks, "The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.'" Here, then, is a fourth opinion in relation to the subject of the verb: it must be "number" understood. Again, it is conceded by the same hand, that, "When numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction." Now who can show that this is not the case in general with the numerals of multiplication? To explain the syntax of "Twice two are four," what can be more rational than to say, "The sense is, 'Twice two units, or things, are four?'" Is it not plain, that twice two things, of any sort, are four things of that same sort, and only so? Twice two duads are how many? Answer: Four duads, or eight units. Here, then, is a fifth opinion,—and a very fair one too,—according to which we have for the subject of the verb, not "two" nor "twice" nor "twice two," nor "number," understood before "two," but the plural noun "units" or "things" implied in or after the multiplicand.

OBS. 21.—It is a doctrine taught by sundry grammarians, and to some extent true, that a neuter verb between two nominatives "may agree with either of them." (See Note 5th to Rule 14th, and the footnote.) When, therefore, a person who knows this, meets with such examples as, "Twice one are two;"—"Twice one unit are two units;"—"Thrice one are three;"—he will of course be apt to refer the verb to the nominative which follows it, rather than to that which precedes it; taking the meaning to be, "Two are twice one;"—"Two units are twice one unit;"—"Three are thrice one." Now, if such is the sense, the construction in each of these instances is right, because it accords with such sense; the interpretation is right also, because it is the only one adapted to such a construction; and we have, concerning the subject of the verb, a sixth opinion,—a very proper one too,—that it is found, not where it is most natural to look for it, in the expression of the factors, but in a noun which is either uttered or implied in the product. But, no doubt, it is better to avoid this construction, by using such a verb as may be said to agree with the number multiplied. Again, and lastly, there may be, touching all such cases as, "Twice one are two," a seventh opinion, that the subject of the verb is the product taken substantively, and not as a numeral adjective. This idea, or the more comprehensive one, that all abstract numbers are nouns substantive, settles nothing concerning the main question, What form of the verb is required by an abstract number above unity? If the number be supposed an adjective, referring to the implied term units, or things, the verb must of course be plural; but if it be called a collective noun, the verb only follows and fixes "the idea of plurality," or "the idea of unity," as the writer or speaker chooses to adopt the one or the other.

OBS. 22.—It is marvellous, that four or five monosyllables, uttered together in a common simple sentence, could give rise to all this diversity of opinion concerning the subject of the verb; but, after all, the chief difficulty presented by the phraseology of multiplication, is that of ascertaining, not "the grammatical subject of the verb," but the grammatical relation between the multiplier and the multiplicand—the true way of parsing the terms once, twice, three times, &c., but especially the word times. That there must be some such relation, is obvious; but what is it? and how is it to be known? To most persons, undoubtedly, "Twice two," and, "Three times two," seem to be regular phrases, in which the words cannot lack syntactical connexion; yet Dr. Bullions, who is great authority with some thinkers, denies all immediate or direct relation between the word "two," and the term before it, preferring to parse both "twice" and "three times" as adjuncts to the participle "taken," understood. He says, "The adverb 'twice' is not in construction with 'two,' and consequently does not make it plural." His first assertion here is, in my opinion, untrue; and the second implies the very erroneous doctrine, that the word twice, if it relate to a singular term, will "make it plural." From a misconception like this, it probably is, that some who ought to be very accurate in speech, are afraid to say, "Twice one is two," or, "Thrice one is three," judging the singular verb to be wrong; and some there are who think, that "usage will not permit" a careful scholar so to speak. Now, analysis favours the singular form here; and it is contrary to a plain principle of General Grammar, to suppose that a plural verb can be demanded by any phrase which is made collectively the subject of the assertion. (See Note 3d, and Obs. 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th, under Rule 14th.) Are is, therefore, not required here; and, if allowable, it is so only on the supposition that the leading nominative is put after it.

OBS. 23.—In Blanchard's small Arithmetic, published in 1854, the following inculcations occur: "When we say, 3 times 4 trees are 12 trees, we have reference to the objects counted; but in saying 3 times 4 is twelve, we mean, that 3 times the number 4, is the number 12. Here we use 4 and 12, not as numeral adjectives, but as nouns, the names of particular numbers, and as such, each conveys the idea of unity, and the entire expression is the subject of is, and conveys the idea of unity."—P. iv. Here we have, with an additional error concerning "the entire expression," a repetition of Dr. Bullions's erroneous assumption, that the name of a particular number, as being "a singular noun," must "convey the idea of unity," though the number itself be a distinct plurality. These men talk as if there were an absurdity in affirming that "the number 4" is plural! But, if four be taken as only one thing, how can three multiply this one thing into twelve? It is by no means proper to affirm, that, "Every four, taken three times, is, or are, twelve;" for three instances, or "times," of the figure 4, or of the word four, are only three 4's, or three verbal fours. And is it not because "the number 4" is plural—is in itself four units—and because the word four, or the figure 4, conveys explicitly the idea of this plurality, that the multiplication table is true, where it says, "3 times 4 are 12?" It is not right to say, "Three times one quaternion is twelve;" nor is it quite unobjectionable to say, with Blanchard "3 times the number 4, is the number 12." Besides, this pretended interpretation explains nothing. The syntax of the shorter text, "3 times 4 is 12," is in no way justified or illustrated by it. Who does not perceive that the four here spoken of must be four units, or four things of some sort; and that no such "four," multiplied by 3, or till "3 times," can "convey the idea of unity," or match a singular verb? Dr. Webster did not so conceive of this "abstract number," or of "the entire expression" in which it is multiplied; for he says, "Four times four amount to sixteen."—American Dict., w. Time.

OBS. 24.—In fact no phrase of multiplication is of such a nature that it can, with any plausibility be reckoned a composite subject of the verb. Once, twice, and thrice, are adverbs; and each of them may, in general, be parsed as relating directly to the multiplicand. Their construction, as well as that of the plural verb, is agreeable to the Latin norm; as, when Cicero says of somebody, "Si, bis bina quot essent, didicisset,"—"If he had learned how many twice two are."—See Ainsworth's Dict., w. Binus. The phrases, "one time," for once, and "two times" for twice, seem puerile expressions: they are not often used by competent teachers. Thrice is a good word, but more elegant than popular. Above twice, we use the phrases, three times, four times, and the like, which are severally composed of a numeral adjective and the noun times. If these words were united, as some think they ought to be, the compounds would be adverbs of time repeated; as, threetimes, fourtimes, &c., analogous to sometimes. Each word would answer, as each phrase now does, to the question, How often? These expressions are taken by some as having a direct adverbial relation to the terms which they qualify; but they are perhaps most commonly explained as being dependent on some preposition understood. See Obs. 1st on Rule 5th, and Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.

OBS. 25.—In multiplying one only, it is evidently best to use a singular verb: as, "Twice naught is naught;"—"Three times one is three." And, in multiplying any number above one, I judge a plural verb to be necessary: as, "Twice two are four;"—"Three times two are six;" because this number must be just so many in order to give the product. Dr. Bullions says, "We should say, 'Three times two is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times is six.'" This is neither reasoning, nor explanation, nor good grammar. The relation between "two" and "three," or the syntax of the word "times," or the propriety of the singular verb, is no more apparent in the latter expression than in the former. It would be better logic to affirm, "We should say, 'Three times two are six;' because the meaning is, 'Two (units), taken for, to, or till three times, are six.'" The preposition till, or until, is sometimes found in use before an expression of times numbered; as, "How oft shall I forgive? till seven times? I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven."—Matt., xviii, 21. But here is still a difficulty with repect to the multiplying term, or the word "times." For, unless, by an unallowable ellipsis, "seventy times seven," is presumed to mean, "seventy times of seven," the preposition Until must govern, not this noun "times." expressed, but an other, understood after "seven;" and the meaning must be, "Thou shalt forgive him until seventy-times seven times;" or—"until seven times taken for, to, or till, seventy times."

OBS. 26.—With too little regard to consistency. Dr. Bullions suggests that when "we make 'times' the subject of the verb," it is not "really" such, but "is in the objective of number." He is, doubtless, right in preferring to parse this word as an objective case, rather than as a nominative, in the construction to which he alludes; but to call it an "objective of number," is an uncouth error, a very strange mistake for so great a grammarian to utter: there being in grammar no such thing as "the objective of number:" nothing of the sort, even under his own "Special Rule," to which he refers us for it! And, if such a thing there were, so that a number could be "put in the objective case without a governing word," (see his §828,) the plural word times, since it denotes no particular aggregate of units, could never be an example of it. It is true that times, like days, weeks, and other nouns of time, may be, and often is, in the objective case without a governing word expressed; and, in such instances, it may be called the objective of repetition, or of time repeated. But the construction of the word appears to be such as is common to many nouns of time, of value, or of measure; which, in their relation to other words, seem to resemble adverbs, but which are usually said to be governed by prepositions understood: as, "Three days later;" i.e., "Later by three days."—"Three shillings cheaper;" i.e., "Cheaper by three shillings."—"Seven times hotter;" i.e., "Hotter by seven times."—"Four feet high;" i.e., "High to four feet."—"Ten years old;" i.e., "Old to ten years."—"Five times ten;" i.e., "Ten by five times;" or, perhaps, "Ten taken till five times."

NOTE TO RULE XV.

A collective noun conveying the idea of unity, requires a verb in the third person, singular; and generally admits also the regular plural construction: as, "His army was defeated."—"His armies were defeated."

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XV.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.—THE IDEA OF PLURALITY.

"The gentry is punctilious in their etiquette."

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the verb is is of the singular number, and does not correctly agree with its nominative gentry, which is a collective noun conveying rather the idea of plurality. But, according to Rule 15th, "When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the verb must agree with it in the plural number." Therefore, is should be are; thus, "The gentry are punctilious in their etiquette."]

"In France the peasantry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes."—HARVEY: Priestley's Gram., p. 188. "The people rejoices in that which should cause sorrow."—See Murray's Exercises, p. 49. "My people is foolish, they have not known me."—Jer., iv, 22; Lowth's Gram., p. 75. "For the people speaks, but does not write."—Philological Museum, i, 646. "So that all the people that was in the camp, trembled."—Exodus, xix, 16. "No company likes to confess that they are ignorant."—Student's Manual, p. 217. "Far the greater part of their captives was anciently sacrificed."—Robertson's America, i, 339. "Above one half of them was cut off before the return of spring."—Ib., ii, 419. "The other class, termed Figures of Thought, supposes the words to be used in their proper and literal meaning."—Blair's Rhet., p. 133; Murray's Gram., 337. "A multitude of words in their dialect approaches to the Teutonic form, and therefore afford excellent assistance."—Dr. Murray's Hist of Lang., i, 148. "A great majority of our authors is defective in manner."—James Brown's Crit. "The greater part of these new-coined words has been rejected."—Tooke's Diversions, ii, 445. "The greater part of the words it contains is subject to certain modifications and inflections."—The Friend, ii, 123. "While all our youth prefers her to the rest."—Waller's Poems, p. 17. "Mankind is appointed to live in a future state."—Butler's Analogy, p. 57. "The greater part of human kind speaks and acts wholly by imitation."—Wright's Gram., p. 169. "The greatest part of human gratifications approaches so nearly to vice."—Ibid.

"While still the busy world is treading o'er The paths they trod five thousand years before."—Young.

UNDER THE NOTE.—THE IDEA OF UNITY.

"In old English this species of words were numerous."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., ii, 6. "And a series of exercises in false grammar are introduced towards the end."—Frost's El. of E. Gram., p. iv. "And a jury, in conformity with the same idea, were anciently called homagium, the homage, or manhood."—Webster's Essays, p. 296. "With respect to the former, there are indeed plenty of means."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 319. "The number of school districts have increased since the last year."—Governor Throop, 1832. "The Yearly Meeting have purchased with its funds these publications."—Foster's Reports, i, 76. "Have the legislature power to prohibit assemblies?"—Wm. Sullivan. "So that the whole number of the streets were fifty."—Rollin's Ancient Hist., ii, 8. "The number of inhabitants were not more than four millions."—SMOLLETT: see Priestley's Gram., p. 193. "The House of Commons were of small weight."—HUME: Ib., p. 188. "The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me."—Psal. xxii, 16; Lowth's Gram., p. 75. "Every kind of convenience and comfort are provided."—Com. School Journal, i, 24. "Amidst the great decrease of the inhabitants of Spain, the body of the clergy have suffered no diminution; but has rather been gradually increasing."—Payne's Geog., ii, 418. "Small as the number of inhabitants are, yet their poverty is extreme."—Ib., ii, 417. "The number of the names were about one hundred and twenty."—Ware's Gram., p. 12; see Acts, i, 15.

RULE XVI.—FINITE VERBS.

When a Verb has two or more nominatives connected by and, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together: as, "True rhetoric and sound logic are very nearly allied."—Blair's Rhet., p. 11. "Aggression and injury in no case justify retaliation."—Wayland's Moral Science, p. 406.

"Judges and senates have been bought for gold, Esteem and love were never to be sold."—Pope.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

When two nominatives connected by and serve merely to describe one person or thing, they are either in apposition or equivalent to one name, and do not require a plural verb; as, "Immediately comes a hue and cry after a gang of thieves."—L'Estrange. "The hue and cry of the country pursues him."—Junius, Letter xxiii. "Flesh and blood [i. e. man, or man's nature,] hath not revealed it unto thee."—Matt., xvi, 17." Descent and fall to us is adverse."—Milton, P. L., ii, 76. "This philosopher and poet was banished from his country."—"Such a Saviour and Redeemer is actually provided for us."—Gurney's Essays, p. 386. "Let us then declare what great things our God and Saviour has done for us."—Dr. Scott, on Luke viii. "Toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them."—Ezra, iv, 20.

"Whose icy current and compulsive course Ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on."—Shakspeare.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

When two nominatives connected by and, are emphatically distinguished, they belong to different propositions, and, if singular, do not require a plural verb; as, "Ambition, and not the safety of the state, was concerned."—Goldsmith. "Consanguinity, and not affinity, is the ground of the prohibition."—Webster's Essays, p. 324. "But a modification, and oftentimes a total change, takes place."—Maunder. "Somewhat, and, in many circumstances, a great deal too, is put upon us."—Butler's Analogy, p. 108. "Disgrace, and perhaps ruin, was the certain consequence of attempting the latter."—Robertson's America, i, 434.

"Ay, and no too, was no good divinity."—_Shakespeare.

"Love_, and love only, is the loan for love."—Young.

EXCEPTION THIRD.

When two or more nominatives connected by and are preceded by the adjective each, every, or no, they are taken separately, and do not require a plural verb; as, "When no part of their substance, and no one of their properties, is the same."—Bp. Butler. "Every limb and feature appears with its respective grace."—Steele. "Every person, and every occurrence, is beheld in the most favourable light."—Murray's Key, p. 190. "Each worm, and each insect, is a marvel of creative power."

"Whose every look and gesture was a joke To clapping theatres and shouting crowds."—Young.

EXCEPTION FOURTH.

When the verb separates its nominatives, it agrees with that which precedes it, and is understood to the rest; as, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."—Murray's Exercises, p. 36.

"Disdain forbids me, and my dread of shame."—Milton.

"———Forth in the pleasing spring, Thy beauty walks, thy tenderness, and love."—Thomson.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVI.

OBS. 1.—According to Lindley Murray, (who, in all his compilation, from whatever learned authorities, refers us to no places in any book but his own.) "Dr. Blair observes, that 'two or more substantives, joined by a copulative, must always require the verb or pronoun to which they refer, to be placed in the plural number:' and this," continues the great Compiler, "is the general sentiment of English grammarians."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 150. The same thing is stated in many other grammars: thus, Ingersoll has the very same words, on the 238th page of his book; and R. C. Smith says, "Dr. Blair very justly observes," &c.—Productive Gram., p. 126. I therefore doubt not, the learned rhetorician has somewhere made some such remark: though I can neither supply the reference which these gentlemen omit, nor vouch for the accuracy of their quotation. But I trust to make it very clear, that so many grammarians as hold this sentiment, are no great readers, to say the least of them. Murray himself acknowledges one exception to this principle, and unconsciously furnishes examples of one or two more; but, in stead of placing the former in his Grammar, and under the rule, where the learner would be likely to notice it, he makes it an obscure and almost unintelligible note, in the margin of his Key, referring by an asterisk to the following correction: "Every man and every woman was numbered."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. ii. p. 190. To justify this phraseology, he talks thus: "Whatever number of nouns may be connected by a conjunction with the pronoun EVERY, this pronoun is as applicable to the whole mass of them, as to any one of the nouns; and therefore the verb is correctly put in the singular number, and refers to the whole separately and individually considered."—Ib. So much, then, for "the pronoun EVERY!" But, without other exceptions, what shall be done with the following texts from Murray himself? "The flock, and not the fleece, is, or ought to be the object of the shepherd's care."—Ib., ii, 184. "This prodigy of learning, this scholar, critic, and antiquary, was entirely destitute of breeding and civility."—Ib., ii, 217. And, in the following line, what conjunction appears, or what is the difference between "horror" and "black despair." that the verb should be made plural?

"What black despair, what horror, fill his mind!"—Ib., ii, 183.

"What black despair, what horror fills his heart!"—Thomson.[395]

OBS. 2.—Besides the many examples which may justly come under the four exceptions above specified, there are several questionable but customary expressions, which have some appearance of being deviations from this rule, but which may perhaps be reasonably explained on the principle of ellipsis: as, "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy."—"Slow and steady often outtravels haste."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 23. "Little and often fills the purse."—Treasury of Knowledge, Part i, p. 446. "Fair and softly goes far." These maxims, by universal custom, lay claim to a singular verb; and, for my part, I know not how they can well be considered either real exceptions to the foregoing rule, or real inaccuracies under it; for, in most of them, the words connected are not nouns; and those which are so, may not be nominatives. And it is clear, that every exception must have some specific character by which it may be distinguished; else it destroys the rule, in stead of confirming it, as known exceptions are said to do. Murray appears to have thought the singular verb wrong; for, among his examples for parsing, he has, "Fair and softly go far," which instance is no more entitled to a plural verb than the rest. See his Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 5. Why not suppose them all to be elliptical? Their meaning may be as follows: "To have all work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy."—"What is slow and steady, often outtravels haste."—"To put in little and often, fills the purse."—"What proceeds fair and softly, goes far." The following line from Shakspeare appears to be still more elliptical:

"Poor and content is rich, and rich enough."—Othello.

This may be supposed to mean, "He who is poor and content," &c. In the following sentence again, we may suppose an ellipsis of the phrase To have, at the beginning; though here, perhaps, to have pluralized the verb, would have been as well:

"One eye on death and one full fix'd on heaven, Becomes a mortal and immortal man."—Young.

OBS. 3.—The names of two persons are not unfrequently used jointly as the name of their story; in which sense, they must have a singular verb, if they have any; as, "Prior's Henry and Emma contains an other beautiful example."—Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 179. I somewhat hesitate to call this an exception to the foregoing rule, because here too the phraseology may be supposed elliptical. The meaning is, "Prior's little poem, entitled, 'Henry and Emma,' contains," &c.;—or, "Prior's story of Henry and Emma contains," &c. And, if the first expression is only an abbreviation of one of these, the construction of the verb contains may be referred to Rule 14th. See Exception 1st to Rule 12th, and Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.

OBS. 4.—The conjunction and, by which alone we can with propriety connect different words to make them joint nominatives or joint antecedents, is sometimes suppressed and understood; but then its effect is the same, as if it were inserted; though a singular verb might sometimes be quite as proper in the same sentences, because it would merely imply a disjunctive conjunction or none at all: as, "The high breach of trust, the notorious corruption, are stated in the strongest terms."—Junius, Let. xx. "Envy, self-will, jealousy, pride, often reign there."—Abbott's Corner Stone, p. 111. (See Obs. 4th on Rule 12th.)

"Art, empire, earth itself, to change are doomed."—Beattie.

"Her heart, her mind, her love, is his alone."—Cowley.

In all the foregoing examples, a singular verb might have been used without impropriety; or the last, which is singular, might have been plural. But the following couplet evidently requires a plural verb, and is therefore correct as the poet wrote it; both because the latter noun is plural, and because the conjunction and is understood between the two. Yet a late grammarian, perceiving no difference between the joys of sense and the pleasure of reason, not only changes "lie" to "lies," but uses the perversion for a proof text, under a rule which refers the verb to the first noun only, and requires it to be singular. See Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 250.

"Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense. Lie in three words—health, peace, and competence." —Pope's Ess., Ep. iv, l. 80.

OBS. 5.—When the speaker changes his nominative to take a stronger expression, he commonly uses no conjunction; but, putting the verb in agreement with the noun which is next to it, he leaves the other to an implied concord with its proper form of the same verb: as, "The man whose designs, whose whole conduct, tends to reduce me to subjection, that man is at war with me, though not a blow has yet been given, nor a sword drawn."—Blair's Rhet., p. 265. "All Greece, all the barbarian world, is too narrow for this man's ambition."—Ibid. "This self-command, this exertion of reason in the midst of passion, has a wonderful effect both to please and to persuade."—Ib., p. 260. "In the mutual influence of body and soul, there is a wisdom, a wonderful wisdom, which we cannot fathom."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 150. If the principle here stated is just, Murray has written the following models erroneously: "Virtue, honour, nay, even self-interest, conspire to recommend the measure."—Ib., p. 150. "Patriotism, morality, every public and private consideration, demand our submission to just and lawful government."—Ibid. In this latter instance, I should prefer the singular verb demands; and in the former, the expression ought to be otherwise altered, thus. "Virtue, honour, and interest, all conspire to recommend the measure." Or thus: "Virtue, honour—nay, even self-interest, recommends the measure." On this principle, too, Thomson was right, and this critic wrong, in the example cited at the close of the first observation above. This construction is again recurred to by Murray, in the second chapter of his Exercises; where he explicitly condemns the following sentence because the verb is singular: "Prudence, policy, nay, his own true interest, strongly recommends the line of conduct proposed to him."—Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 22.

OBS. 6.—When two or more nominatives are in apposition with a preceding one which they explain, the verb must agree with the first word only, because the others are adjuncts to this, and not joint subjects to the verb; as, "Loudd, the ancient Lydda and Diospolis, appears like a place lately ravaged by fire and sword."—Keith's Evidences, p. 93. "Beattie, James,—a philosopher and poet,—was born in Scotland, in the year 1735."—Murray's Sequel, p. 306. "For, the quantity, the length, and shortness of our syllables, is not, by any means, so fixed."—Blair's Rhet., p. 124. This principle, like the preceding one, persuades me again to dissent from Murray, who corrects or perverts the following sentence, by changing originates to originate: "All that makes a figure on the great theatre of the world; the employments of the busy, the enterprises of the ambitious, and the exploits of the warlike; the virtues which form the happiness, and the crimes which occasion the misery of mankind; originates in that silent and secret recess of thought, which is hidden from every human eye."—See Murray's Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 181; or his Duodecimo Key, p. 21. The true subject of this proposition is the noun all, which is singular; and the other nominatives are subordinate to this, and merely explanatory of it.

OBS. 7.—Dr. Webster says, "Enumeration and addition of numbers are usually expressed in the singular number; [as,] two and two is four; seven and nine is sixteen; that is, the sum of seven and nine is sixteen. But modern usage inclines to reject the use of the verb in the singular number, in these and similar phrases."—Improved Gram., p. 106. Among its many faults, this passage exhibits a virtual contradiction. For what "modern usage inclines to reject," can hardly be the fashion in which any ideas "are usually expressed." Besides, I may safely aver, that this is a kind of phraseology which all correct usage always did reject. It is not only a gross vulgarism, but a plain and palpable violation of the foregoing rule of syntax; and, as such it must be reputed, if the rule has any propriety at all. What "enumeration" has to do with it, is more than I can tell. But Dr. Webster once admired and commended this mode of speech, as one of the "wonderful proofs of ingenuity in the framers of language;" and laboured to defend it as being "correct upon principle;" that is, upon the principle that "the sum of" is understood to be the subject of the affirmation, when one says, "Two and two is four," in stead of, "Two and two are four."—See Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 153. This seems to me a "wonderful proof" of ignorance in a very learned man. OBS. 8.—In Greek and Latin, the verb frequently agrees with the nearest nominative, and is understood to the rest; and this construction is sometimes imitated in English, especially if the nouns follow the verb: as, "[Greek: Nuni do MENEI pistis, elpis agape, ta tria tanta]."—"Nunc vero manet fides, spes, charitas; tria hæc."—"Now abideth faith, hope, charity; these three."—1 Cor., xiii, 13. "And now abideth confession, prayer, and praise, these three; but the greatest of these is praise."—ATTERBURY: Blair's Rhet., p. 300. The propriety of this usage, so far as our language is concerned, I doubt. It seems to open a door for numerous deviations from the foregoing rule, and deviations of such a sort, that if they are to be considered exceptions, one can hardly tell why. The practice, however, is not uncommon, especially if there are more nouns than two, and each is emphatic; as, "Wonderful was the patience, fortitude, self-denial, and bravery of our ancestors."—Webster's Hist. of U. S., p. 118. "It is the very thing I would have you make out: for therein consists the form, and use, and nature of language."—Berkley's Alciphron, p. 161. "There is the proper noun, and the common noun. There is the singular noun, and the plural noun."—Emmons's Gram., p. 11. "From him proceeds power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every other blessing we can conceive."—Calvin's Institutes, B. i, Ch. 13. "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country?"—Jer., vi, 20. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever."—Matt., vi, 13. In all these instances, the plural verb might have been used; and yet perhaps the singular may be justified on the ground that there is a distinct and emphatic enumeration of the nouns. Thus, it would be proper to say, "Thine are the kingdom, the power, and the glory;" but this construction seems less emphatic than the preceding, which means, "For thine is the kingdom, thine is the power, and thine is the glory, forever;" and this repetition is still more emphatic, and perhaps more proper, than the elliptical form. The repetition of the conjunction "and," in the original text as above, adds time and emphasis to the reading, and makes the singular verb more proper than it would otherwise be; for which reason, the following form, in which the Rev. Dr. Bullions has set the sentence down for bad English, is in some sort a perversion of the Scripture: "Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 141.

OBS. 9.—When the nominatives are of different persons, the verb agrees with the first person in preference to the second, and with the second in preference to the third; for thou and I, or he, thou, and I, are equivalent to we; and thou and he are equivalent to you: as, "Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, thou and Ziba divide the land."—2 Sam., xix. 29. That is, "divide ye the land." "And live thou and thy children of the rest."—2 Kings, iv, 7. "That I and thy people have found grace in thy sight."—Exodus, xxxiii, 16. "I and my kingdom are guiltless."—2 Sam., iii, 28. "I, and you, and Piso perhaps too, are in a state of dissatisfaction."—Zenobia, i, 114.

"Then I, and you, and all of us, fell down, Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us."—Shak., J. Cæsar.

OBS. 10.—When two or more nominatives connected by and are of the same form but distinguished by adjectives or possessives, one or more of them may be omitted by ellipsis, but the verb must be plural, and agree with them all; as, "A literary, a scientific, a wealthy, and a poor man, were assembled in one room."—Peirce's Gram., p. 263. Here four different men are clearly spoken of. "Else the rising and the falling emphasis are the same."—Knowles's Elocutionist, p. 33. Here the noun emphasis is understood after rising. "The singular and [the] plural form seem to be confounded."—Lowth's Gram., p. 22. Here the noun form is presented to the mind twice; and therefore the article should have been repeated. See Obs. 15th on Rule 1st. "My farm and William's are adjacent to each other."—Peirce's Gram., p. 220. Here the noun farm is understood after the possessive William's, though the author of the sentence foolishly attempts to explain it otherwise. "Seth's, Richard's and Edmund's farms are those which their fathers left them."—Ib., p. 257. Here the noun farms is understood after Seth's, and again after Richard's; so that the sentence is written wrong, unless each man has more than one farm. "Was not Demosthenes's style, and his master Plato's, perfectly Attic; and yet none more lofty?"—Milnes's Greek Gram., p. 241. Here style is understood after Plato's; wherefore was should rather be were, or else and should be changed to as well as. But the text, as it stands, is not much unlike some of the exceptions noticed above. "The character of a fop, and of a rough warrior, are no where more successfully contrasted."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 236. Here the ellipsis is not very proper. Say, "the character of a fop, and that of a rough warrior," &c. Again: "We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, of the legislature, and of public assemblies, are seldom or ever found united to high perfection in the same person."—J. Q. Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. 256. Here the ellipsis cannot so well be avoided by means of the pronominal adjective that, and therefore it may be thought more excusable; but I should prefer a repetition of the nominative: as, "We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, the eloquence of the legislature, and the eloquence of public assemblies, are seldom if ever found united, in any high degree, in the same person."

OBS. 11.—The conjunction as, when it connects nominatives that are in apposition, or significant of the same person or thing, is commonly placed at the beginning of a sentence, so that the verb agrees with its proper nominative following the explanatory word: thus, "As a poet, he holds a high rank."—Murray's Sequel, p. 355. "As a poet, Addison claims a high praise."—Ib., p. 304. "As a model of English prose, his writings merit the greatest praise."—Ib., p. 305. But when this conjunction denotes a comparison between different persons or things signified by two nominatives, there must be two verbs expressed or understood, each agreeing with its own subject; as, "Such writers as he [is,] have no reputation worth any man's envy." [396]

"Such men as he [is] be never at heart's ease Whiles they behold a greater than themselves."—Shakspeare.

OBS. 12.—When two nominatives are connected by as well as, but, or save, they must in fact have two verbs, though in most instances only one is expressed; as, "Such is the mutual dependence of words in sentences, that several others, as well as [is] the adjective, are not to be used alone."—Dr. Wilson's Essay, p. 99. "The Constitution was to be the one fundamental law of the land, to which all, as well States as people, should submit."—W. I. BOWDITCH: Liberator, No. 984. "As well those which history, as those which experience offers to our reflection."— Bolingbroke, on History, p. 85. Here the words "offers to our reflection" are understood after "history." "None but He who discerns futurity, could have foretold and described all these things."—Keith's Evidences, p. 62. "That there was in those times no other writer, of any degree of eminence, save he himself."—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 43.

"I do entreat you not a man depart, Save I alone, till Antony have spoke."—Shak., J. Cæsar.

OBS. 13.—Some grammarians say, that but and save, when they denote exception, should govern the objective case as prepositions. But this idea is, without doubt, contrary to the current usage of the best authors, either ancient or modern. Wherefore I think it evident that these grammarians err. The objective case of nouns being like the nominative, the point can be proved only by the pronouns; as, "There is none but he alone."—Perkins's Theology, 1608. "There is none other but he."—Mark, xii, 32. (This text is good authority as regards the case, though it is incorrect in an other respect: it should have been, "There is none but he," or else, "There is no other than he.") "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."—John, iii, 13. "Not that any man hath seen the father, save he which is of God."—John, vi, 46. "Few can, save he and I."—Byron's Werner. "There is none justified, but he that is in measure sanctified."—Isaac Penington. Save, as a conjunction, is nearly obsolete.

OBS. 14.—In Rev., ii, 17th, we read, "Which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth it;" and again, xiii, 17th, "That no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark." The following text is inaccurate, but not in the construction of the nominative they: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."—Matt., xix, 11. The version ought to have been, "Not all men can receive this saying, but they only to whom it is given:" i.e., "they only can receive it, to whom there is given power to receive it." Of but with a nominative, examples may be multiplied indefinitely. The following are as good as any: "There is no God but He."—Sale's Koran, p. 27. "The former none but He could execute."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 317. "There was nobody at home but I."—Walker's Particles, p. 95. "A fact, of which as none but he could be conscious, [so] none but he could be the publisher of it."—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 117. "Few but they who are involved in the vices, are involved in the irreligion of the times."—Brown's Estimate, i, 101.

"I claim my right. No Grecian prince but I Has power this bow to grant, or to deny." —Pope, Odys., B. xxi, l. 272.

"Thus she, and none but she, the insulting rage Of heretics oppos'd from age to age." —Dryden's Poems, p. 98.

In opposition to all these authorities, and many more that might be added, we have, with now and then a text of false syntax, the absurd opinion of perhaps a score or two of our grammarians; one of whom imagines he has found in the following couplet from Swift, an example to the purpose; but he forgets that the verb let governs the objective case:

"Let none but him who rules the thunder, Attempt to part these twain asunder." —Perley's Gram., p. 62.

OBS. 15.—It is truly a wonder, that so many professed critics should not see the absurdity of taking but and save for "prepositions," when this can be done only by condemning the current usage of nearly all good authors, as well as the common opinion of most grammarians; and the greater is the wonder, because they seem to do it innocently, or to teach it childishly, as not knowing that they cannot justify both sides, when the question lies between opposite and contradictory principles. By this sort of simplicity, which approves of errors, if much practised, and of opposites, or essential contraries, when authorities may be found for them, no work, perhaps, is more strikingly characterized, than the popular School Grammar of W. H. Wells. This author says, "The use of but as a preposition is approved by J. E. Worcester, John Walker, R. C. Smith, Picket, Hiley, Angus, Lynde, Hull, Powers, Spear, Farnum, Fowle, Goldsbury, Perley, Cobb, Badgley, Cooper, Jones, Davis, Beall, Hendrick, Hazen, and Goodenow."—School Gram., 1850, p. 178. But what if all these authors do prefer, "but him," and "save him," where ten times as many would say, "but he," "save he?" Is it therefore difficult to determine which party is right? Or is it proper for a grammarian to name sundry authorities on both sides, excite doubt in the mind of his reader, and leave the matter unsettled? "The use of but as a preposition," he also states, "is discountenanced by G. Brown, Sanborn, Murray, S. Oliver, and several other grammarians. (See also an able article in the Mass. Common School Journal, Vol. ii, p. 19.)"—School Gram., p. 178.

OBS. 16.—Wells passes no censure on the use of nominatives after but and save; does not intimate which case is fittest to follow these words; gives no false syntax under his rule for the regimen of prepositions; but inserts there the following brief remarks and examples:

"REM. 3.—The word save is frequently used to perform the office of a preposition; as, 'And all desisted, all save him alone.'—Wordsworth."

"REM. 4.—But is sometimes employed as a preposition, in the sense of except; as, 'The boy stood on the burning deck, Whence all but him had fled.'—Hemans."—Ib., p. 167.

Now, "BUT," says Worcester, as well as Tooke and others, was "originally bot, contracted from be out;" and, if this notion of its etymology is just, it must certainly be followed by the nominative case, rather than by the objective; for the imperative be or be out governs no case, admits no additional term but a nominative—an obvious and important fact, quite overlooked by those who call but a preposition. According to Allen H. Weld, but and save "are commonly considered prepositions," but "are more commonly termed conjunctions!" This author repeats Wells's examples of "save him," and "but him," as being right; and mixes them with opposite examples of "save he," "but he," "save I," which he thinks to be more right!—Weld's Gram., p. 187.

OBS. 17.—Professor Fowler, too, an other author remarkable for a facility of embracing incompatibles, contraries, or dubieties, not only condemns as "false syntax" the use of save for an exceptive conjunction. (§587. ¶28,) but cites approvingly from Latham the following very strange absurdity: "One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a Conjunction or [a] Preposition, as the case may be: [as] All fled but John."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, § 555. This is equivalent to saying, that "one and the same sentence" may be two different sentences; may, without error, be understood in two different senses; may be rightly taken, resolved, and parsed in two different ways! Nay, it is equivalent to a denial of the old logical position, that "It is impossible for a thing to be and not be at the same time;" for it supposes "but," in the instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and not a conjunction, both a preposition and not a preposition, "as the case may be!" It is true, that "one and the same word" may sometimes be differently parsed by different grammarians, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the expression itself is equivocal. "All fled but John," is thought to mean equally well, "All fled but he," and, "All fled but him;" while these latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore erroneous, is to be corrected, rather than parsed in any way. But I deny both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics profess to find among the said phrases. "John fled not, but all the rest fled," is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form, "All fled but him," it is told ungrammatically; in the other two, correctly.

OBS. 18.—In Latin, cum with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed to have, the force of the conjunction et with a nominative; as, "Dux cum aliquot principibus capiuntur."—LIVY: W. Allen's Gram., p. 131. In imitation of this construction, some English writers have substituted with for and, and varied the verb accordingly; as, "A long course of time, with a variety of accidents and circumstances, are requisite to produce those revolutions."—HUME: Allen's Gram., p. 131; Ware's, 12; Priestley's, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his proof text under the following observation: "It is not necessary that the two subjects of an affirmation should stand in the very same construction, to require the verb to be in the plural number. If one of them be made to depend upon the other by a connecting particle, it may, in some cases, have the same force, as if it were independent of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 186. Lindley Murray, on the contrary, condemns this doctrine, and after citing the same example with others, says: "It is however, proper to observe that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by the just principles of construction."— Octavo Gram., p. 150. He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it. All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it. And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek. They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought. Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus assumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty.

OBS. 19.—Dr. Adam simply remarks, "The plural is sometimes used after the preposition cum put for et; as, Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt. Virg."—Latin and English Gram., p. 207; Gould's Adam's Latin Gram., p. 204; W. Allen's English Gram., 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better. Alexander has it in a worse form still: "Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt."—Latin Gram., p. 47. Virgil's words are, "Cana FIDES, et VESTA, Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt."—Æneid, B. i, l. 296. Nor is cum here "put for et," unless we suppose also an antiptosis of Remo fratre for Remus frater; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they correct in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: "The palace of Pizarro, together with the houses of several of his adherents, were pillaged by the soldiers."— Hist. of Amer., Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, "were" ought to be was. Secondly, if were be retained, "together with" ought to be changed to and, or and also. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, "The palace of Pizarro, as well as the houses of several of his adherents, was pillaged by the soldiers." Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: "And there appeared unto them Elias, with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus." If this text meant that the three disciples were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him;" and our version in Luke is, "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias."—Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the pronoun they, which our translators inserted, was meant for "Elias with Moses;" but the Greek verb for "appeared," as used by Mark, is singular, and agrees only with Elias. "[Greek: Kai ophthæ autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai hæsan syllalountes to Iæsoy.]"—"Et apparuit illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu."—Montanus. "Et visus est eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu."—Beza. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: "Et iis virent paroître Moyse et Elie, qui s'entretenoient avec Jésus." That is, "And there appeared to them Moses and Elias, who were talking with Jesus." Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, "And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and these two were talking with Jesus." There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, "The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, who with his brethren and sons were twelve."—1 Chron., xxv, 9. Better: "and he, his brethren, and his sons, were twelve."

OBS. 20.—Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting with for and; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such "a sort of addition made to it." The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable example, "Sidmouth, with Oliver the spye, have brought Brandreth to the block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The Tyrant, with the Spy, have brought Peter to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, has or have. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use and, and not with? After some further illustrations, he says: "When with means along with, together with, in Company with, and the like, it is nearly the same as and; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with his brothers, are able to do much.' Not, 'is able to do much.' If the pronoun be used instead of brothers, it will be in the objective case: 'He, with them, are able to do much.' But this is no impediment to the including of the noun (represented by them) in the nominative." I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist! The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, do much;' and not 'does much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it does nothing. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain:"—1 Tim., vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its meaning? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?

OBS. 21.—There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a real one,) in which there is either an ellipsis of the preposition with, or else the verb is made singular because the first noun only is its true subject, and the others are explanatory nominatives to which the same verb must be understood in the plural number; as, "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."—ADDISON: in Johnson's Dict., w. All. "Down comes the tree, nest, eagles, and all."—See All, ibidem. Here goes and comes are necessarily made singular, the former agreeing with torch and the latter with tree; and, if the other nouns, which are like an explanatory parenthesis, are nominatives, as they appear to me to be, they must be subjects of go and come understood. Cobbett teaches us to say, "The bag, with the guineas and dollars in it, were stolen," and not, was stolen. "For," says he, "if we say was stolen, it is possible for us to mean, that the bag only was stolen,"—English Gram., ¶ 246. And I suppose he would say, "The bag, guineas, dollars, and all, were stolen," and not, "was stolen;" for here a rule of syntax might be urged, in addition to his false argument from the sense. But the meaning of the former sentence is, "The bag was stolen, with the guineas and dollars in it;" and the meaning of the latter is, "The bag was stolen, guineas, dollars, and all." Nor can there be any doubt about the meaning, place the words which way you will; and whatever, in either case, may be the true construction of the words in the parenthetical or explanatory phrase, they should not, I think, prevent the verb from agreeing with the first noun only. But if the other nouns intervene without affecting this concord, and without a preposition to govern them, it may be well to distinguish them in the punctuation; as, "The bag, (guineas, dollars, and all,) was stolen."

NOTES TO RULE XVI.

NOTE I.—When the conjunction and between two nominatives appears to require a plural verb, but such form of the verb is not agreeable, it is better to reject or change the connective, that the verb may stand correctly in the singular number; as, "There is a peculiar force and beauty in this figure."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 224. Better: "There is a peculiar force, as well as a peculiar beauty, in this figure." "What means this restless stir and commotion of mind?"—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 242. Better: "What means this restless stir, this commotion of mind?"

NOTE II.—When two subjects or antecedents are connected, one of which is taken affirmatively, and the other negatively, they belong to different propositions; and the verb or pronoun must agree with the affirmative subject, and be understood to the other: as "Diligent industry, and not mean savings, produces honourable competence."—"Not a loud voice but strong proofs bring conviction."—"My poverty, but not my will, consents."—Shakespeare.

NOTE III.—When two subjects or antecedents are connected by as well as, but, or save, they belong to different propositions; and, (unless one of them is preceded by the adverb not,) the verb and pronoun must agree with the former and be understood to the latter: as, "Veracity, as well as justice, is to be our rule of life."—Butler's Analogy, p. 283. "The lowest mechanic, as well as the richest citizen, may boast that thousands of his fellow-creatures are employed for him."—Percival's Tales, ii, 177. "These principles, as well as every just rule of criticism, are founded upon the sensitive part of our nature."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. xxvi. "Nothing but wailings was heard."—"None but thou can aid us."—"No mortal man, save he," &c., "had e'er survived to say he saw."—Sir W. Scott.

NOTE IV.—When two or more subjects or antecedents are preceded by the adjective each, every, or no, they are taken separately; and, (except no be followed by a plural noun,) they require the verb and pronoun to be in the singular number: as, "No rank, no honour, no fortune, no condition in life, makes the guilty mind happy."—"Every phrase and every figure which he uses, tends to render the picture more lively and complete."—Blair's Rhet., p. 179.

"And every sense, and every heart, is joy."—Thomson.

"Each beast, each insect, happy in its own."—Pope.

NOTE V.—When any words or terms are to be taken conjointly as subjects or antecedents, the conjunction and, (in preference to with, or, nor, or any thing else,) must connect them. The following sentence is therefore inaccurate; with should be and; or else were should be was: "One of them, [the] wife of Thomas Cole, with her husband, were shot down, the others escaped."—Hutchinson's Hist., Vol. ii, p. 86. So, in the following couplet, or should be and, or else engines should be engine:

"What if the head, the eye, or ear repined, To serve mere engines to the ruling mind?"—Pope.

NOTE VI.—Improper omissions must be supplied; but when there occurs a true ellipsis in the construction of joint nominatives or joint antecedents, the verb or pronoun must agree with them in the plural, just as if all the words were expressed: as, "The second and the third Epistle of John are each but one short chapter."—"The metaphorical and the literal meaning are improperly mixed."—Murray's Gram., p. 339. "The Doctrine of Words, separately consider'd, and in a Sentence, are Things distinct enough."—Brightland's Gram., Pref., p. iv. Better perhaps: "The doctrine of words separately considered, and that of words in a sentence, are things distinct enough."

"The Curii's and the Camilli's little field, To vast extended territories yield."—Rowe's Lucan, B. i, l. 320.

NOTE VII.—Two or more distinct subject phrases connected by and, require a plural verb, and generally a plural noun too, if a nominative follow the verb; as, "To be wise in our own eyes, to be wise in the opinion of the world, and to be wise in the sight of our Creator, are three things so very different, as rarely to coincide."—Blair. "'This picture of my friend,' and 'This picture of my friend's,' suggest very different ideas."—Priestley's Gram., p. 71; Murray's, i, 178.

"Read of this burgess—on the stone appear, How worthy he! how virtuous! and how dear!"—Crabbe.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XVI.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.—THE VERB AFTER JOINT NOMINATIVES.

"So much ability and merit is seldom found."—Murray's Key, 12mo, p. 18; Merchant's School Gram., p. 190.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the verb is is in the singular number, and does not correctly agree with its two nominatives, ability and merit, which are connected by and, and taken conjointly. But, according to Rule 16th, "When a verb has two or more nominatives connected by and, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together." Therefore, is should be are; thus, "So much ability and merit are seldom found." Or: "So much ability and so much merit are seldom found."]

"The syntax and etymology of the language is thus spread before the learner."—Bullions's English Gram., 2d Edition, Rec., p. iii. "Dr. Johnson tells us, that in English poetry the accent and the quantity of syllables is the same thing."—J. Q. Adams's Rhet., ii, 213. "Their general scope and tendency, having never been clearly apprehended, is not remembered at all."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 126. "The soil and sovereignty was not purchased of the natives."—Knapp's Lect. on Amer. Lit., p. 55. "The boldness, freedom, and variety of our blank verse, is infinitely more favourable than rhyme, to all kinds of sublime poetry."—Blair's Rhet., p. 40. "The vivacity and sensibility of the Greeks seems to have been much greater than ours."—Ib., p. 253. "For sometimes the Mood and Tense is signified by the Verb, sometimes they are signified of the Verb by something else.'"—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 254. "The Verb and the Noun making a complete Sense, which the Participle and the Noun does not."—Ib., p. 255. "The growth and decay of passions and emotions, traced through all their mazes, is a subject too extensive for an undertaking like the present."—Kames El. of Crit., i, 108. "The true meaning and etymology of some of his words was lost."—Knight, on the Greek Alph., p. 37. "When the force and direction of personal satire is no longer understood."—Junius, p. 5. "The frame and condition of man admits of no other principle."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 54. "Some considerable time and care was necessary."—Ib., ii 150. "In consequence of this idea, much ridicule and censure has been thrown upon Milton."—Blair's Rhet., p. 428. "With rational beings, nature and reason is the same thing."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 111. "And the flax and the barley was smitten."—Exod., ix, 31. "The colon, and semicolon, divides a period, this with, and that without a connective."—J. Ware's Gram., p. 27. "Consequently wherever space and time is found, there God must also be."—Sir Isaac Newton. "As the past tense and perfect participle of love ends in ed, it is regular."—Chandler's Gram., p. 40; New Edition, p. 66. "But the usual arrangement and nomenclature prevents this from being readily seen."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 3. "Do and did simply implies opposition or emphasis."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 41. "I and another make we, plural: Thou and another is as much as ye: He, she, or it and another make they"—Ib., p. 124. "I and another, is as much as (we) the first Person Plural; Thou and another, is as much as (ye) the second Person Plural; He, she, or it, and another, is as much as (they) the third Person Plural."—British Gram., p. 193; Buchanan's Syntax, p. 76. "God and thou art two, and thou and thy neighbour are two."—The Love Conquest, p. 25. "Just as an and a has arisen out of the numeral one."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo. 1850, §200. "The tone and style of each of them, particularly the first and the last, is very different."—Blair's Rhet., p. 246. "Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten."—Deut., xiii, 22. "Then I may conclude that two and three makes not five."—Barclay's Works, iii, 354. "Which at sundry times thou and thy brethren hast received from us."—Ib., i, 165. "Two and two is four, and one is five."—POPE: Lives of the Poets, p. 490. "Humility and knowledge with poor apparel, excels pride and ignorance under costly array."—Day's Gram., Parsing Lesson, p. 100. "A page and a half has been added to the section on composition."—Bullions's E. Gram., 5th Ed., Pref., p. vii. "Accuracy and expertness in this exercise is an important acquisition."—Ib., p. 71.

"Woods and groves are of thy dressing, Hill and dale doth boast thy blessing."—Milton's Poems, p. 139.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.—THE VERB BEFORE JOINT NOMINATIVES.

"There is a good and a bad, a right and a wrong in taste, as in other things."—Blair's Rhet., p. 21. "Whence has arisen much stiffness and affectation."—Ib., p. 133. "To this error is owing, in a great measure, that intricacy and harshness, in his figurative language, which I before remarked."—Ib., p. 150; Jamieson's Rhet., 157. "Hence, in his Night Thoughts, there prevails an obscurity and hardness in his style."—Blair's Rhet., p. 150. "There is, however, in that work much good sense, and excellent criticism."—Ib., p. 401. "There is too much low wit and scurrility in Plautus."—Ib., p. 481. "There is too much reasoning and refinement; too much pomp and studied beauty in them."—Ib., p. 468. "Hence arises the structure and characteristic expression of exclamation."—Rush on the Voice, p. 229. "And such pilots is he and his brethren, according to their own confession."—Barclay's Works, iii, 314. "Of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus: who concerning the truth have erred."—2 Tim., ii, 17. "Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan."—1 Tim., i, 20. "And so was James and John, the sons of Zebedee."—Luke, v, 10. "Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing."—James, iii, 10. "Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good."—Lam., iii, 38. "In which there is most plainly a right and a wrong."—Butler's Analogy, p. 215. "In this sentence there is both an actor and an object."—Smith's Inductive Gram., p. 14. "In the breast-plate was placed the mysterious Urim and Thummim."—Milman's Jews, i, 88. "What is the gender, number, and person of those in the first?"—Smith's Productive Gram., p. 19. "There seems to be a familiarity and want of dignity in it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 150. "It has been often asked, what is Latin and Greek?"—Literary Convention, p. 209. "For where does beauty and high wit But in your constellation meet?"—Hudibras, p. 134. "Thence to the land where flows Ganges and Indus."—Paradise Lost, B. ix, l. 81. "On these foundations seems to rest the midnight riot and dissipation of modern assemblies."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 46. "But what has disease, deformity, and filth, upon which the thoughts can be allured to dwell?"—Johnson's Life of Swift, p. 492. "How is the gender and number of the relative known?"—Bullions, Practical Lessons, p. 32.

"High rides the sun, thick rolls the dust, And feebler speeds the blow and thrust."—Sir W. Scott.

UNDER NOTE I.—CHANGE THE CONNECTIVE.

"In every language there prevails a certain structure and analogy of parts, which is understood to give foundation to the most reputable usage."—Blair's Rhet., p. 90. "There runs through his whole manner, a stiffness and affectation, which renders him very unfit to be considered a general model."—Ib., p. 102. "But where declamation and improvement in speech is the sole aim"—Ib., p. 257. "For it is by these chiefly, that the train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the mind, in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open."—Lowth's Gram., p. 103. "In all writing and discourse, the proper composition and structure of sentnences is of the highest importance."—Blair's Rhet., p. 101. "Here the wishful look and expectation of the beggar naturally leads to a vivid conception of that which was the object of his thoughts."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 386. "Who say, that the outward naming of Christ, and signing of the cross, puts away devils."—Barclay's Works, i, 146. "By which an oath and penalty was to be imposed upon the members."—Junius, p. 6. "Light and knowledge, in what manner soever afforded us, is equally from God."—Butler's Analogy, p. 264. "For instance, sickness and untimely death is the consequence of intemperance."—Ib., p. 78. "When grief, and blood ill-tempered vexeth him."—Beauties of Shakspeare, p. 256. "Does continuity and connexion create sympathy and relation in the parts of the body?"—Collier's Antoninus, p. 111. "His greatest concern, and highest enjoyment, was to be approved in the sight of his Creator."—Murray's Key, p. 224. "Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?"—2 Sam, iii, 38. "What is vice and wickedness? No rarity, you may depend on it."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 107. "There is also the fear and apprehension of it."—Butler's Analogy, p. 87. "The apostrophe and s, ('s,) is an abbreviation for is, the termination of the old English genitive."—Bullions, E. Gram., p. 17. "Ti, ce, and ci, when followed by a vowel, usually has the sound of sh; as in partial, special, ocean."—Weld's Gram., p. 15.

"Bitter constraint and sad occasion dear Compels me to disturb your season due."—Milton's Lycidas.

"Debauches and excess, though with less noise, As great a portion of mankind destroys."—Waller, p. 55.

UNDER NOTE II.—AFFIRMATION WITH NEGATION.

"Wisdom, and not wealth, procure esteem."—Brown's Inst., p. 156. "Prudence, and not pomp, are the basis of his fame."—Ib. "Not fear, but labour have overcome him."—Ib. "The decency, and not the abstinence, make the difference."—Ib. "Not her beauty, but her talents attracts attention."—Ib. "It is her talents, and not her beauty, that attracts attention."—Ib. "It is her beauty, and not her talents that attract attention."—Ib.

"His belly, not his brains, this impulse give: He'll grow immortal; for he cannot live."—Young, to Pope.

UNDER NOTE III.—AS WELL AS, BUT, OR SAVE.

"Common sense as well as piety tell us these are proper."—Family Commentary, p. 64. "For without it the critic, as well as the undertaker, ignorant of any rule, have nothing left but to abandon themselves to chance."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 42. "And accordingly hatred as well as love are extinguished by long absence."—Ib., i, 113. "But at every turn the richest melody as well as the sublimest sentiments are conspicuous."—Ib., ii, 121. "But it, as well as the lines immediately subsequent, defy all translation."—Coleridge's Introduction, p. 96. "But their religion, as well as their customs, and manners, were strangely misrepresented."—BOLINGBROKE, ON HISTORY, p. 123; Priestley's Gram., p. 192; Murray's Exercises, p. 47. "But his jealous policy, as well as the fatal antipathy of Fonseca, were conspicuous."—Robertson's America, i, 191. "When their extent as well as their value were unknown."—Ib., ii, 138. "The Etymology, as well as the Syntax, of the more difficult parts of speech are reserved for his attention [at a later period]."—Parker and Fox's E. Gram., Part i, p. 3. "What I myself owe to him, no one but myself know."—See Wright's Athens, p. 96. "None, but thou, O mighty prince! canst avert the blow."—Inst., p. 156. "Nothing, but frivolous amusements, please the indolent."—Ib.

"Nought, save the gurglings of the rill, were heard."—G. B.

"All songsters, save the hooting owl, was mute."—G. B.

UNDER NOTE IV.—EACH, EVERY, OR NO.

"Give every word, and every member, their due weight and force."—Blair's Rhet., p. 110. "And to one of these belong every noun, and every third person of every verb."—Wilson's Essay on Gram., p. 74. "No law, no restraint, no regulation, are required to keep him in bounds."—Literary Convention, p. 260. "By that time, every window and every door in the street were full of heads."—N. Y. Observer, No. 503. "Every system of religion, and every school of philosophy, stand back from this field, and leave Jesus Christ alone, the solitary example"—The Corner Stone, p. 17. "Each day, and each hour, bring their portion of duty."—Inst., p. 156. "And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him."—1 Sam., xxii, 2. "Every private Christian and member of the church ought to read and peruse the Scriptures, that they may know their faith and belief founded upon them."—Barclay's Works, i, 340. "And every mountain and island were moved out of their places."—Rev., vi, 14.

"No bandit fierce, no tyrant mad with pride, No cavern'd hermit rest self-satisfied."

UNDER NOTE V.—WITH, OR, &c. FOR AND.

"The side A, with the sides B and C, compose the triangle."—Tobitt's Gram., p. 48; Felch's, 69; Ware's, 12. "The stream, the rock, or the tree, must each of them stand forth, so as to make a figure in the imagination."—Blair's Rhet., p. 390. "While this, with euphony, constitute, finally, the whole."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 293. "The bag, with the guineas and dollars in it, were stolen."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶246. "Sobriety, with great industry and talent, enable a man to perform great deeds."—Ib., ¶245. "The it, together with the verb to be, express states of being."—Ib., ¶190. "Where Leonidas the Spartan king, with his chosen band, fighting for their country, were cut off to the last man."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 203. "And Leah also, with her children, came near and bowed themselves."—Gen., xxxiii, 7. "The First or Second will, either of them, by themselves coalesce with the Third, but not with each other."—Harris's Hermes, p. 74. "The whole must centre in the query, whether Tragedy or Comedy are hurtful and dangerous representations?"—Formey's Belles-Lettres, p. 215. "Grief as well as joy are infectious: the emotions they raise in the spectator resemble them perfectly."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 157. "But in all other words the Qu are both sounded."—Ensell's Gram., p. 16. "Qu (which are always together) have the sound of ku or k, as in queen, opaque."— Goodenow's Gram., p. 45. "In this selection the ai form distinct syllables."—Walker's Key, p. 290. "And a considerable village, with gardens, fields, &c., extend around on each side of the square."— Liberator, Vol. ix, p. 140. "Affection, or interest, guide our notions and behaviour in the affairs of life; imagination and passion affect the sentiments that we entertain in matters of taste."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 171. "She heard none of those intimations of her defects, which envy, petulance, or anger, produce among children."—Rambler, No. 189. "The King, with the Lords and Commons, constitute an excellent form of government."—Crombie's Treatise, p. 242. "If we say, 'I am the man, who commands you,' the relative clause, with the antecedent man, form the predicate."—Ib., p. 266.

"The spacious firmament on high, With all the blue ethereal sky, And spangled heav'ns, a shining frame, Their great Original proclaim." —ADDISON. Murray's Key, p. 174; Day's Gram., p. 92; Farnum's, 106.

UNDER NOTE VI.—ELLIPTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS.

"There is a reputable and a disreputable practice."—Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. 350. "This and this man was born in her."—Milton's Psalms, lxxxvii. "This and that man was born in her."—Psal. lxxxvii, 5. "This and that man was born there."—Hendrick's Gram., p. 94. "Thus le in l~ego and l~egi seem to be sounded equally long."—Adam's Gram., p. 253; Gould's, 243. "A distinct and an accurate articulation forms the groundwork of good delivery."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 25. "How is vocal and written language understood?"—C. W. Sanders, Spelling-Book, p. 7. "The good, the wise, and the learned man is an ornament to human society."—Bartlett's Reader. "On some points, the expression of song and speech is identical."—Rush, on the Voice, p. 425. "To every room there was an open and secret passage."—Johnson's Rasselas, p. 13. "There iz such a thing az tru and false taste, and the latter az often directs fashion, az the former."—Webster's Essays, p. 401. "There is such a thing as a prudent and imprudent institution of life, with regard to our health and our affairs"—Butler's Analogy, p. 210. "The lot of the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah, however different in one respect, have in another corresponded with wonderful exactness."—Hope of Israel, p. 301. "On these final syllables the radical and vanishing movement is performed."—Rush, on the Voice, p. 64. "To be young or old, good, just, or the contrary, are physical or moral events."—SPURZHEIM: Felch's Comp. Gram., p. 29. "The eloquence of George Whitfield and of John Wesley was of a very different character each from the other."—Dr. Sharp. "The affinity of m for the series b, and of n for the series t, give occasion for other Euphonic changes."—Fowler's E. Gram., §77.

"Pylades' soul and mad Orestes', was In these, if we believe Pythagoras"—Cowley's Poems, p. 3.

UNDER NOTE VII.—DISTINCT SUBJECT PHRASES.

"To be moderate in our views, and to proceed temperately in the pursuit of them, is the best way to ensure success."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 206. "To be of any species, and to have a right to the name of that species, is all one."—Locke's Essay, p. 300. "With whom to will and to do is the same."—Jamieson's Sacred History, Vol. ii, p. 22. "To profess, and to possess, is very different things."—Inst., p. 156. "To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God, is duties of universal obligation."—Ib. "To be round or square, to be solid or fluid, to be large or small, and to be moved swiftly or slowly, is all equally alien from the nature of thought."—Ib. "The resolving of a sentence into its elements or parts of speech and stating the Accidents which belong to these, is called PARSING."—Bullion's Pract. Lessons, p. 9. "To spin and to weave, to knit and to sew, was once a girl's employment; but now to dress and catch a beau, is all she calls enjoyment."—Lynn News, Vol. 8, No. 1.

RULE XVII.—FINITE VERBS.

When a Verb has two or more nominatives connected by or or nor, it must agree with them singly, and not as if taken together: as, "Fear or jealousy affects him."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 133. "Nor eye, nor listening ear, an object finds: creation sleeps."—Young. "Neither character nor dialogue was yet understood."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 151.

"The wife, where danger or dishonour lurks, Safest and seemliest by her husband stays."—Milton, P. L., ix, 267.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVII.

OBS. 1.—To this rule, so far as its application is practicable, there are properly no exceptions; for, or and nor being disjunctive conjunctions, the nominatives are of course to assume the verb separately, and as agreeing with each. Such agreement seems to be positively required by the alternativeness of the expression. Yet the ancient grammarians seldom, if at all, insisted on it. In Latin and Greek, a plural verb is often employed with singular nominatives thus connected; as,

"Tunc nec mens mini, nec color Certa sede manent."—HORACE. See W. Allen's Gram., p. 133.

[Greek: "Ean de adelphos æ adelphæ lumnoi huparchosi, kai leipomenoi osi tæs ephæmerou trophæs."]—James, ii. 15. And the best scholars have sometimes improperly imitated this construction in English; as, "Neither Virgil nor Homer were deficient in any of the former beauties."—DRYDEN'S PREFACE: Brit. Poets, Vol. iii, p. 168. "Neither Saxon nor Roman have availed to add any idea to his [Plato's] categories."—R. W. EMERSON: Liberator, No. 996.

"He comes—nor want nor cold his course delay: Hide, blushing Glory! hide Pultowa's day."—Dr. Johnson.

"No monstrous height, or breadth, or length, appear; The whole at once is bold and regular."—Pope, on Crit., l. 250.

OBS. 2.—When two collective nouns of the singular form are connected by or or nor, the verb may agree with them in the plural number, because such agreement is adapted to each of them, according to Rule 15th; as, "Why mankind, or such a part of mankind, are placed in this condition."—Butler's Analogy, p. 213. "But neither the Board of Control nor the Court of Directors have any scruples about sanctioning the abuses of which I have spoken."—Glory and Shame of England, Vol. ii, p. 70.

OBS. 3.—When a verb has nominatives of different persons or numbers, connected by or or nor, an explicit concord with each is impossible; because the verb cannot be of different persons or numbers at the same time; nor is it so, even when its form is made the same in all the persons and numbers: thus, "I, thou, [or] he, may affirm; we, ye, or they, may affirm."—Beattie's Moral Science, p. 36. Respecting the proper management of the verb when its nominatives thus disagree, the views of our grammarians are not exactly coincident. Few however are ignorant enough, or rash enough, to deny that there may be an implicit or implied concord in such cases,—a zeugma of the verb in English, as well as of the verb or of the adjective in Latin or Greek. Of this, the following is a brief example: "But he nor I feel more."—Dr. Young, Night iii, p. 35. And I shall by-and-by add others—enough, I hope, to confute those false critics who condemn all such phraseology.

OBS. 4.—W. Allen's rule is this: "If the nominatives are of different numbers or persons, the verb agrees with the last; as, he or his brothers were there; neither you nor I am concerned."—English Gram., p. 133. Lindley Murray, and others, say: (1.) "When singular pronouns, or a noun and pronoun, of different persons, are disjunctively connected, the verb must agree with that person which is placed nearest to it: as, 'I or thou art to blame;' 'Thou or I am in fault;' 'I, or thou, or he, is the author of it;' 'George or I am the person.' But it would be better to say; 'Either I am to blame, or thou art,' &c. (2.) When a disjunctive occurs between a singular noun, or pronoun, and a plural one, the verb is made to agree with the plural noun and pronoun: as, 'Neither poverty nor riches were injurious to him;' 'I or they were offended by it.' But in this case, the plural noun or pronoun, when it can conveniently be done, should be placed next to the verb."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 151; Smith's New Gram., 128; Alger's Gram., 54; Comly's, 78 and 79; Merchant's, 86; Picket's, 175; and many more. There are other grammarians who teach, that the verb must agree with the nominative which is placed next to it, whether this be singular or plural; as, "Neither the servants nor the master is respected;"—"Neither the master nor the servants are respected."—Alexander Murray's Gram., p. 65. "But if neither the writings nor the author is in existence, the Imperfect should be used."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 107.

OBS. 5.—On this point, a new author has just given us the following precept and criticism: "Never connect by or, or nor, two or more names or substitutes that have the same asserter [i.e. verb] depending on them for sense, if when taken separately, they require different forms of the asserters. Examples. 'Neither you nor I am concerned. Either he or thou wast there. Either they or he is faulty.' These examples are as erroneous as it would be to say, 'Neither you am concerned, nor am I.' 'Either he wast there, or thou wast.' 'Either they is faulty, or he is.' The sentences should stand thus—'Neither of us is concerned,' or, 'neither are you concerned, nor am I.' 'Either he was there, or thou wast.' 'Either they are faulty, or he is. They are, however, in all their impropriety, writen [sic—KTH] according to the principles of Goold Brown's grammar! and the theories of most of the former writers."—Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 252. We shall see by-and-by who is right.

OBS. 6.—Cobbett also—while he approves of such English as, "He, with them, are able to do much," for, "He and they are able to do much"—condemns expressly every possible example in which the verb has not a full and explicit concord with each of its nominatives, if they are connected by or or nor. His doctrine is this: "If nominatives of different numbers present themselves, we must not give them a verb which disagrees with either the one or the other. We must not say: 'Neither the halter nor the bayonets are sufficient to prevent us from obtaining our rights.' We must avoid this bad grammar by using a different form of words: as, 'We are to be prevented from obtaining our rights by neither the halter nor the bayonets.' And, why should we wish to write bad grammar, if we can express our meaning in good grammar?"—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 242. This question would have more force, if the correction here offered did not convey a meaning widely different from that of the sentence corrected. But he goes on: "We cannot say, 'They or I am in fault; I, or they, or he, is the author of it; George or I am the person.' Mr. Lindley Murray says, that we may use these phrases; and that we have only to take care that the verb agree with that person which is placed nearest to it; but, he says also, that it would be better to avoid such phrases by giving a different turn to our words. I do not like to leave any thing to chance or to discretion, when we have a clear principle for our guide."—Ib., ¶ 243. This author's "clear principle" is merely his own confident assumption, that every form of figurative or implied agreement, every thing which the old grammarians denominated zeugma, is at once to be condemned as a solecism. He is however supported by an other late writer of much greater merit. See Churchill's New Gram., pp. 142 and 312.

OBS. 7.—If, in lieu of their fictitious examples, our grammarians would give us actual quotations from reputable authors, their instructions would doubtless gain something in accuracy, and still more in authority. "I or they were offended by it," and, "I, or thou, or he, is the author of it," are expressions that I shall not defend. They imply an egotistical speaker, who either does not know, or will not tell, whether he is offended or not,—whether he is the author or not! Again, there are expressions that are unobjectionable, and yet not conformable to any of the rules just quoted. That nominatives may be correctly connected by or or nor without an express agreement of the verb with each of them, is a point which can be proved to as full certainty as almost any other in grammar; Churchill, Cobbett, and Peirce to the contrary notwithstanding. But with which of the nominatives the verb shall expressly agree, or to which of them it may most properly be understood, is a matter not easy to be settled by any sure general rule. Nor is the lack of such a rule a very important defect, though the inculcation of a false or imperfect one may be. So judged at least the ancient grammarians, who noticed and named almost every possible form of the zeugma, without censuring any as being ungrammatical. In the Institutes of English Grammar, I noted first the usual form of this concord, and then the allowable exceptions; but a few late writers, we see, denounce every form of it, exceptions and all: and, standing alone in their notions of the figure, value their own authority more than that of all other critics together.

OBS. 8.—In English, as in other languages, when a verb has discordant nominatives connected disjunctively, it most commonly agrees expressly with that which is nearest, and only by implication, with the more remote; as, "When some word or words are dependent on the attribute."—Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 153. "To the first of these qualities, dulness or refinements are dangerous enemies."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 15. "He hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or both are very honorably murdered."—Webster's Essays, p. 235. "The consequence is, that they frown upon everyone whose faults or negligence interrupts or retards their lessons."—W. C. Woodbridge: Lit. Conv., p. 114. "Good intentions, or at least sincerity of purpose, was never denied her."—West's Letters, p. 43. "Yet this proves not that either he or we judge them to be the rule."—Barclay's Works, i, 157. "First clear yourselves of popery before you or thou dost throw it upon us."—Ib., i, 169. "Is the gospel or glad tidings of this salvation brought nigh unto all?"—Ib., i, 362. "Being persuaded, that either they, or their cause, is naught."—Ib., i, 504. "And the reader may judge whether he or I do most fully acknowledge man's fall."—Ib., iii, 332. "To do justice to the Ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one, or any two, of the three Estates, have power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third."—Junius, Letter xvii. "The forest, or hunting-grounds, are deemed the property of the tribe."—Robertson's America, i, 313. "Birth or titles confer no preëminence."—Ib., ii, 184. "Neither tobacco nor hides were imported from Caraccas into Spain."—Ib., ii, 507. "The keys or seed-vessel of the maple has two large side-wings."—The Friend, vii, 97. "An example or two are sufficient to illustrate the general observation."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., i, 58.