latter verb should be put in the subjunctive mood; as, “If there be any intrigue _which stand_ separate and independent.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 457. “The man also would be of considerable use, who should vigilantly attend to every illegal practice _that were beginning_ to prevail.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 171. But I have elsewhere shown, that relatives, in English, are not compatible with the subjunctive mood; and it is certain, that no other mood than the indicative or the potential is commonly used after them. Say therefore, “If there be any intrigue _which stands_,” &c. In assuming to himself the other text, Murray’s says, “_That_ man also would be of considerable use, who should vigilantly attend to every illegal practice that _was_ beginning to prevail.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 366. But this seems too positive. The potential imperfect would be better: viz., “that _might begin_ to prevail.”
OBS. 21.–The termination _st_ or _est_, with which the second person singular of the verb is formed in the indicative present, and, for the solemn style, in the imperfect also; and the termination _s_ or _es_, with which the third person singular is formed in the indicative present, and only there; are signs of the mood and tense, as well as of the person and number, of the verb. They are not applicable to a future uncertainty, or to any mere supposition in which we would leave the time indefinite and make the action hypothetical; because they are commonly understood to fix the time of the verb to the present or the past, and to assume the action as either doing or done. For this reason, our best writers have always omitted those terminations, when they intended to represent the action as being doubtful and contingent as well as conditional. And this omission constitutes the whole _formal_ difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood. The _essential_ difference has, by almost all grammarians, been conceived to extend somewhat further; for, if it were confined strictly within the limits of the literal variation, the subjunctive mood would embrace only two or three words in the whole formation of each verb. After the example of Priestley, Dr. Murray, A. Murray, Harrison, Alexander, and others, I have given to it all the persons of the two simple tenses, singular and plural; and, for various reasons, I am decidedly of the opinion, that these are its most proper limits. The perfect and pluperfect tenses, being past, cannot express what is really contingent or uncertain; and since, in expressing conditionally what may or may not happen, we use the subjunctive present as embracing the future indefinitely, there is no need of any formal futures for this mood. The comprehensive brevity of this form of the verb, is what chiefly commends it. It is not an elliptical form of the future, as some affirm it to be; nor equivalent to the indicative present, as others will have it; but a _true subjunctive_, though its distinctive parts are chiefly confined to the second and third persons singular of the simple verb: as, “Though _thou wash_ thee with nitre.”–_Jer._, ii, 22. “It is just, O great king! that a _murderer perish_.”–_Corneille_. “This single _crime_, in my judgment, _were_ sufficient to condemn him.”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 82. “Beware that _thou bring_ not my son thither.”–BIBLE: _Ward’s Gram._, p. 128. “See [that] _thou tell_ no man.”–_Id., ib._ These examples can hardly be resolved into any thing else than the subjunctive mood.
NOTES TO RULE XIV.
NOTE I.–When the nominative is a relative pronoun, the verb must agree with it in person and number, according to the pronoun’s agreement with its true antecedent or antecedents. Example of error: “The second book [of the AEneid] is one of the greatest masterpieces _that ever was executed_ by any hand.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 439. Here the true antecedent is _masterpieces_, and not the word _one_; but _was executed_ is singular, and “by any _hand_” implies but one agent. Either say, “It is one of the greatest _masterpieces that_ ever _were executed_;” or else, “It is _the greatest masterpiece that ever was executed by any hand_.” But these assertions differ much in their import.
NOTE II.–“The adjuncts of the nominative do not control its agreement with the verb; as, Six months’ _interest was_ due. The _progress_ of his forces _was_ impeded.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 131. “The _ship_, with all her furniture, was destroyed.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 150. “All _appearances_ of modesty _are_ favourable and prepossessing.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 308. “The _power_ of relishing natural enjoyments _is_ soon gone.”–_Fuller, on the Gospel_, p. 135. “_I_, your master, _command_ you (not _commands_)”– _Latham’s Hand-Book_, p. 330.[390]
NOTE III.–Any phrase, sentence, mere word, or other sign, taken as one whole, and made the subject of an assertion, requires a verb in the third person singular; as, “To lie _is_ base.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 154. “When, to read and write, _was_ of itself an honorary distinction.”–_Hazlitt’s Lect._, p. 40. “To admit a God and then refuse to worship him, _is_ a modern and inconsistent practice.”–_Fuller, on the Gospel_, p. 30. “_We is_ a personal pronoun.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 227. “_Th has_ two sounds.”–_Ib._, p. 161. “The _’s is annexed_ to each.”–_Bucke’s Gram._, p. 89. “_Ld. stands_ for _lord_.”–_Webster’s American Dict._, 8vo.
NOTE IV.–The pronominal adjectives, _each, one,[391] either_, and _neither_, are always in the third person singular; and, when they are the leading words in their clauses, they require verbs and pronouns to agree with them accordingly: as, “_Each_ of you _is_ entitled to _his_ share.”–“Let no _one_ deceive _himself_.”
NOTE V.–A neuter or a passive verb between two nominatives should be made to agree with that which precedes it;[392] as, “Words _are_ wind:” except when the terms are transposed, and the proper subject is put after the verb by _question_ or _hyperbaton_; as, “His pavilion _were_ dark _waters_ and thick _clouds_ of the sky.”–_Bible_. “Who _art thou_?”–_Ib._ “The wages of sin _is death_.”–_Ib. Murray, Comly_, and others. But, of this last example, Churchill says, “_Wages are_ the subject, of which it is affirmed, that _they are_ death.”–_New Gram._, p. 314. If so, _is_ ought to be _are_; unless Dr. Webster is right, who imagines _wages_ to be _singular_, and cites this example to prove it so. See his _Improved Gram._, p. 21.
NOTE VI.–When the verb cannot well be made singular, the nominative should be made plural, that they may agree: or, if the verb cannot be plural, let the nominative be singular. Example of error: “For _every one_ of them _know_ their several duties.”–_Hope of Israel_, p. 72. Say, “For _all_ of them know their several duties.”
NOTE VII.–When the verb has different forms, that form should be adopted, which is the most consistent with present and reputable usage in the style employed: thus, to say familiarly, “The clock _hath stricken_;”–“Thou _laughedst_ and _talkedst_, when thou _oughtest_ to have been silent;”–“He _readeth_ and _writeth_, but he _doth_ not cipher,” would be no better, than to use _don’t, won’t, can’t, shan’t_, and _didn’t_, in preaching.
NOTE VIII.–Every finite verb not in the imperative mood, should have a separate nominative expressed; as, “_I came, I saw, I conquered_:” except when the verb is repeated for the sake of emphasis, or connected to an other in the same construction, or put after _but_ or _than_; as, “Not an eminent orator has lived _but is_ an example of it.”–_Ware_. “Where more is meant _than meets_ the ear.”–_Milton’s Allegro_. (See Obs. 5th and Obs. 18th above.)
“They _bud, blow, wither, fall_, and _die_.”–_Watts_.
“That evermore his teeth they _chatter, Chatter, chatter, chatter_ still.”–_Wordsworth_.
NOTE IX.–A future contingency is best expressed by a verb in the subjunctive present; and a mere supposition, with indefinite time, by a verb in the subjunctive imperfect; but a conditional circumstance assumed as a fact, requires the indicative mood:[393] as, “If thou _forsake_ him, he will cast thee off forever.”–_Bible_. “If it _were_ not so, I would have told you.”–_Ib._ “If thou _went_, nothing would be gained.”–“Though he _is_ poor, he is contented.”–“Though he _was_ rich, yet for your sakes he became poor.”–_2 Cor._, viii, 9.
NOTE X.–In general, every such use or extension of the subjunctive mood, as the reader will be likely to mistake for a discord between the verb and its nominative, ought to be avoided as an impropriety: as, “We are not sensible of disproportion, till the difference between the quantities compared _become_ the most striking circumstance.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 341. Say rather, “_becomes_;” which is indicative. “Till the general preference of certain forms _have been declared_.”–_Priestley’s Gram., Pref._, p. xvii. Say, “_has been declared_;” for “_preference_” is here the nominative, and Dr. Priestley himself recognizes no other subjunctive tenses than the present and the imperfect; as, “If thou _love_, If thou _loved_.”–_Ib._, p. 16.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XIV.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–VERB AFTER THE NOMINATIVE.
“Before you left Sicily, you was reconciled to Verres.”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 19.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the passive verb _was reconciled_ is of the singular number, and does not agree with its nominative _you_, which is of the second person plural. But, according to Rule 14th, “Every finite verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number.” Therefore, _was reconciled_ should be _were reconciled_; thus, “Before you left Sicily, you _were reconciled_ to Verres.”]
“Knowing that you was my old master’s good friend.”–_Spect._, No. 517. “When the judge dare not act, where is the loser’s remedy?”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 131. “Which extends it no farther than the variation of the verb extend.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, Vol. i, p. 211. “They presently dry without hurt, as myself hath often proved.”–_Roger Williams_. “Whose goings forth hath been from of old, from everlasting.”–_Keith’s Evidences_. “You was paid to fight against Alexander, not to rail at him.”–_Porter’s Analysis_, p. 70. “Where more than one part of speech is almost always concerned.”–_Churchill’s Gram., Pref._, p. viii. “Nothing less than murders, rapines, and conflagrations, employ their thoughts.”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 175. “I wondered where you was, my dear.”–_Lloyd’s Poems_, p. 185. “When thou most sweetly sings.”–_Drummond of Hawthornden_. “Who dare, at the present day, avow himself equal to the task?”–_Music of Nature_, p. 11. “Every body are very kind to her, and not discourteous to me.”–_Byron’s Letters_. “As to what thou says respecting the diversity of opinions.”–_The Friend_, Vol. ix, p. 45. “Thy nature, immortality, who knowest?”–_Everest’s Gram._, p. 38. “The natural distinction of sex in animals gives rise to what, in grammar, is called genders.”–_Ib._, p. 51. “Some pains has likewise been taken.”–_Scott’s Pref. to Bible_. “And many a steed in his stables were seen.”–_Penwarne’s Poems_, p. 108. “They was forced to eat what never was esteemed food.”–_Josephus’s Jewish War_, B. i, Ch. i, Sec.7. “This that yourself hath spoken, I desire that they may take their oaths upon.”–_Hutchinson’s Mass._, ii, 435. “By men whose experience best qualify them to judge.”–_Committee on Literature, N. Y. Legislature_. “He dare venture to kill and destroy several other kinds of fish.”–_Johnson’s Dict, w. Perch_. “If a gudgeon meet a roach, He dare not venture to approach.”–SWIFT: _Ib., w. Roach_. “Which thou endeavours to establish unto thyself.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 164. “But they pray together much oftener than thou insinuates.”–_Ib._, i, 215. “Of people of all denominations, over whom thou presideth.”–_The Friend_, Vol. v, p. 198. “I can produce ladies and gentlemen whose progress have been astonishing.”–_Chazotte, on Teaching Lang._, p. 62. “Which of these two kinds of vice are more criminal?”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 115. “Every twenty-four hours affords to us the vicissitudes of day and night.”–_Smith’s New Gram._, p. 103. “Every four years adds another day.”–_Ib._ “Every error I could find, Have my busy muse employed.”–_Swift’s Poems_, p. 335. “A studious scholar deserve the approbation of his teacher.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 226. “Perfect submission to the rules of a school indicate good breeding.”–_Ib._, p. 37. “A comparison in which more than two is concerned.”–_Bullions, E. Gram._, p. 114. “By the facilities which artificial language afford them.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 16. “Now thyself hath lost both lop and top.”–SPENSER: _Joh. Dict., w. Lop._ “Glad tidings is brought to the poor.”–_Campbell’s Gospels: Luke_, vii, 23. “Upon which, all that is pleasurable, or affecting in elocution, chiefly depend.”–_Sheridan’s Elocution_, p. 129. “No pains has been spared to render this work complete.”–_Bullions, Lat. Gram., Pref._, p. iv. “The United States contains more than a twentieth part of the land of this globe.”–DE WITT CLINTON: _Cobb’s N. Amer. Reader_, p. 173. “I am mindful that myself is (or am) strong.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, Sec. 500. “Myself _is_ (not _am_) weak; thyself _is_ (not _art_) weak.”–_Ib._, Sec.479.
“How pale each worshipful and reverend guest Rise from a clergy or a city feast!”–_Pope_, Sat. ii, l. 75.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–VERB BEFORE THE NOMINATIVE.
“Where was you born? In London.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 133. “There is frequent occasions for commas.”–_Ingersoll’s Gram._, p. 281. “There necessarily follows from thence, these plain and unquestionable consequences.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 191. “And to this impression contribute the redoubled effort.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 112. “Or if he was, was there no spiritual men then?”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 86. “So by these two also is signified their contrary principles.”–_Ib._, iii, 200. “In the motions made with the hands, consist the chief part of gesture in speaking.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 336. “Dare he assume the name of a popular magistrate?”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 140. “There was no damages as in England, and so Scott lost his wager.”–_Byron_. “In fact there exists such resemblances.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 64. “To him giveth all the prophets witness.”–_Crewdson’s Beacon_, p. 79. “That there was so many witnesses and actors.”–_Addison’s Evidences_, p. 37. “How does this man’s definitions stand affected?”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 136. “Whence comes all the powers and prerogatives of rational beings?”–_Ib._, p. 144. “Nor does the Scriptures cited by thee prove thy intent.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 155. “Nor do the Scripture cited by thee prove the contrary.”–_Ib._, i, 211. “Why then cite thou a Scripture which is so plain and clear for it?”–_Ib._, i, 163. “But what saith the Scriptures as to respect of persons among Christians?”–_Ib._, i, 404. “But in the mind of man, while in the savage state, there seems to be hardly any ideas but what enter by the senses.”–_Robertson’s America_, i, 289. “What sounds have each of the vowels?”–_Griscom’s Questions_. “Out of this has grown up aristocracies, monarchies, despotisms, tyrannies.”–_Brownson’s Elwood_, p. 222. “And there was taken up, of fragments that remained to them, twelve baskets.”– _Luke_, ix, 17. “There seems to be but two general classes.”–_Day’s Gram._, p. 3. “Hence arises the six forms of expressing time.”–_Ib._, p. 37. “There seems to be no other words required.”–_Chandler’s Gram._, p. 28. “If there is two, the second increment is the syllable next the last.”–_Bullions, Lat. Gram._, 12th Ed., p. 281. “Hence arises the following advantages.”–_Id., Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 1849, p. 67. “There is no data by which it can be estimated.”–_J. C. Calhoun’s Speech_, March 4, 1850. “To this class belong the Chinese [language], in which we have nothing but naked roots.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, p. 27. “There was several other grotesque figures that presented themselves.”– _Spect._, No. 173. “In these consist that sovereign good which ancient sages so much extol.”–_Percival’s Tales_, ii, 221. “Here comes those I have done good to against my will.”–_Shak., Shrew_. “Where there is more than one auxiliary.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 80.
“On me to cast those eyes where shine nobility.” –SIDNEY: _Joh. Dict._
“Here’s half-pence in plenty, for one you’ll have twenty.” –_Swift’s Poems_, p. 347.
“Ah, Jockey, ill advises thou, I wis, To think of songs at such a time as this.” –_Churchill_, p. 18.
UNDER NOTE I.–THE RELATIVE AND VERB.
“Thou who loves us, wilt protect us still.”–_Alex. Murray’s Gram._, p. 67. “To use that endearing language, Our Father, who is in heaven”–_Bates’s Doctrines_, p. 103. “Resembling the passions that produceth these actions.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 157. “Except _dwarf, grief, hoof, muff_, &c. which takes _s_ to make the plural.”–_Ash’s Gram._, p. 19. “As the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure.”– _Gen._ xxxiii, 14 “Where is the man who dare affirm that such an action is mad?”–_Werter_. “The ninth book of Livy affords one of the most beautiful exemplifications of historical painting, that is any where to be met with.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 360. “In some studies too, that relate to taste and fine writing, which is our object,” &c.–_Ib._, p. 349. “Of those affecting situations, which makes man’s heart feel for man.”–_Ib._, p. 464. “We see very plainly, that it is neither Osmyn, nor Jane Shore, that speak.”–_Ib._, p. 468. “It should assume that briskness and ease, which is suited to the freedom of dialogue.”–_Ib._, p. 469. “Yet they grant, that none ought to be admitted into the ministry, but such as is truly pious.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 147. “This letter is one of the best that has been written about Lord Byron.”–_Hunt’s Byron_, p. 119. “Thus, besides what was sunk, the Athenians took above two hundred ships.”–_Goldsmith’s Greece_, i, 102. “To have made and declared such orders as was necessary.”–_Hutchinson’s Hist._, i, 470. “The idea of such a collection of men as make an army.”–_Locke’s Essay_, p. 217. “I’m not the first that have been wretched.”–_Southern’s In. Ad._, Act 2. “And the faint sparks of it, which is in the angels, are concealed from our view.”–_Calvin’s Institutes_, B. i, Ch. 11. “The subjects are of such a nature, as allow room for much diversity of taste and sentiment.”–_Blair’s Rhet., Pref._, p. 5. “It is in order to propose examples of such perfection, as are not to be found in the real examples of society.”–_Formey’s Belles-Lettres_, p. 16. “I do not believe that he would amuse himself with such fooleries as has been attributed to him.”–_Ib._, p. 218. “That shepherd, who first taughtst the chosen seed.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 238. “With respect to the vehemence and warmth which is allowed in popular eloquence.”– _Blair’s Rhet._, p. 261. “Ambition is one of those passions that is never to be satisfied.”–_Home’s Art of Thinking_, p. 36. “Thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.”–_2 Samuel_, v, 2; and _1 Chron._, xi, 2. “Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah?”–_1 Kings_, xiii, 14.
“How beauty is excell’d by manly grace And wisdom, which alone is truly fair.”–_Milton_, B. iv, l. 490.
“What art thou, speak, that on designs unknown, While others sleep, thus range the camp alone?”–_Pope, Il._, x, 90.
UNDER NOTE II.–NOMINATIVE WITH ADJUNCTS.
“The literal sense of the words are, that the action had been done.”–_Dr. Murray’s Hist. of Lang._, i, 65. “The rapidity of his movements were beyond example.”–_Wells’s Hist._, p. 161. “Murray’s Grammar, together with his Exercises and Key, have nearly superseded every thing else of the kind.”–EVAN’S REC.: _Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, ii, 305. “The mechanism of clocks and watches were totally unknown.”–HUME: _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 193. “The _it_, together with the verb _to be_, express states of being.”–_Cobbett’s Eng. Gram._, 190. “Hence it is, that the profuse variety of objects in some natural landscapes, neither breed confusion nor fatigue.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 266. “Such a clatter of sounds indicate rage and ferocity.”–_Music of Nature_, p. 195. “One of the fields make threescore square yards, and the other only fifty-five.”–_Duncan’s Logic_, p. 8. “The happy effects of this fable is worth attending to.”–_Bailey’s Ovid_, p. x. “Yet the glorious serenity of its parting rays still linger with us.”–_Gould’s Advocate_. “Enough of its form and force are retained to render them uneasy.”–_Maturin’s Sermons_, p. 261. “The works of nature, in this respect, is extremely regular.”–_Dr. Pratt’s Werter_. “No small addition of exotic and foreign words and phrases have been made by commerce.”–_Bicknell’s Gram._, Part ii, p. 10. “The dialect of some nouns are taken notice of in the notes.”–_Milnes, Greek Gram._, p. 255. “It has been said, that a discovery of the full resources of the arts, afford the means of debasement, or of perversion.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. xxvii. “By which means the Order of the Words are disturbed.”–_Holmes’s Rhet._, B. i, p. 57. “The twofold influence of these and the others require the asserter to be in the plural form.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 251. “And each of these afford employment.”–_Percival’s Tales_, Vol. ii, p. 175. “The pronunciation of the vowels are best explained under the rules relative to the consonants.”–_Coar’s Gram._, p. 7. “The judicial power of these courts extend to all cases in law and equity.”–_Hall and Baker’s School Hist._, p. 286. “One of you have stolen my money.”–_Rational Humorist_, p. 45. “Such redundancy of epithets, instead of pleasing, produce satiety and disgust.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 256. “It has been alleged, that a compliance with the rules of Rhetoric, tend to cramp the mind.”–_Hiley’s Gram._, 3d Ed., p. 187. “Each of these are presented to us in different relations”–_Hendrick’s Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 34. “The past tense of these verbs, _should, would, might, could_, are very indefinite with respect to time.”–_Bullions, E. Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 33; 5th Ed., p. 31. “The power of the words, which are said to govern this mood, are distinctly understood.”–_Chandler’s Gram._, Ed. of 1821, p. 33.
“And now, at length, the fated term of years The world’s desire have brought, and lo! the God appears.” –_Dr. Lowth, on “the Genealogy of Christ.”_
“Variety of Numbers still belong
To the soft Melody of Ode or Song.” –_Brightland’s Gram._, p. 170.
UNDER NOTE III.–COMPOSITE OR CONVERTED SUBJECTS.
“Many are the works of human industry, which to begin and finish are hardly granted to the same man.”–_Johnson, Adv. to Dict._ “To lay down rules for these are as inefficacious.”–_Dr. Pratt’s Werter_, p. 19. “To profess regard, and to act _differently_, discover a base mind.”–_Murray’s Key_, ii, p. 206. See also _Bullions’s E. Gram._, 82 and 112; _Lennie’s_, 58. “To magnify to the height of wonder things great, new, and admirable, extremely please the mind of man.”–_Fisher’s Gram._, p. 152. “In this passage, _according as_ are used in a manner which is very common.”–_Webster’s Philosophical Gram._, p. 183. “A _cause de_ are called a preposition; _a cause que_, a conjunction.”–DR. WEBSTER: _Knickerbocker_, 1836. “To these are given to speak in the name of the Lord.”–_The Friend_, vii, 256. “While _wheat_ has no plural, _oats_ have seldom any singular.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._ 41. “He cannot assert that _ll_ are inserted in _fullness_ to denote the sound of _u_.”–_Cobb’s Review of Webster_, p. 11. “_ch_ have the power of _k_.”–_Gould’s Adam’s Gram._, p. 2. “_ti_, before a vowel, and unaccented, have the sound of _si_ or _ci_.”–_Ibid._ “In words derived from the French, as _chagrin, chicanery_, and _chaise, ch_ are sounded like _sh_.”–_Bucke’s Gram._, p. 10. “But in the word _schism, schismatic_, &c., the _ch_ are silent.”–_Ibid._ “_Ph_ are always sounded like _f_, at the beginning of words.”–_Bucke’s Gram._ “_Ph_ have the sound of _f_ as in _philosophy_.”–_Webster’s El. Spelling-Book_, p. 11. “_Sh_ have one sound only as in _shall_.”–_Ib._ “_Th_ have two sounds.”–_Ib._ “_Sc_ have the sound of _sk_, before _a, o, u_, and _r_.”–_Ib._ “Aw, have the sound of _a_ in hall.”–_Bolles’s Spelling-Book_, p. vi. “Ew, sound like _u_.”–_Ib._ “Ow, when both sounded, have the sound of _ou_.”–_Ib._ “Ui, when both pronounced in one syllable sound like _wi_ in _languid_.”–_Ib._
“_Ui_ three several Sorts of Sound express, As _Guile, rebuild, Bruise_ and _Recruit_ confess.” –_Brightland’s Gram._, p. 34.
UNDER NOTE IV.–EACH, ONE, EITHER, AND NEITHER.
“When each of the letters which compose this word, have been learned.”–_Dr. Weeks, on Orthog._, p. 22. “As neither of us deny that both Homer and Virgil have great beauties.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 21. “Yet neither of them are remarkable for precision.”–_Ib._, p. 95. “How far each of the three great epic poets have distinguished themselves.”–_Ib._, p. 427. “Each of these produce a separate agreeable sensation.”–_Ib._, p. 48. “On the Lord’s day every one of us Christians keep the sabbath.”–_Tr. of Irenaeus_. “And each of them bear the image of purity and holiness.”–_Hope of Israel_, p. 81. “Were either of these meetings ever acknowledged or recognized?”–_Foster’s Report_, i, 96. “Whilst neither of these letters exist in the Eugubian inscription.”–_Knight, on Greek Alph._, p. 122. “And neither of them are properly termed indefinite.”–_Wilson’s Essay on Gram._, p. 88. “As likewise of the several subjects, which have in effect each their verb.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 120. “Sometimes when the word ends in _s_, neither of the signs are used.”–_Alex. Murray’s Gram._, p. 21. “And as neither of these manners offend the ear.”–_Walker’s Dict., Pref._, p. 5. “Neither of these two Tenses are confined to this signification only.”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 339. “But neither of these circumstances are intended here.”–_Tooke’s Diversions_, ii, 237. “So that all are indebted to each, and each are dependent upon all.”–_Am. Bible Society’s Rep._, 1838, p. 89. “And yet neither of them express any more action in this case than they did in the other.”–_Bullions, E. Gram._, p. 201. “Each of these expressions denote action.”–_Hallock’s Gram._, p. 74. “Neither of these moods seem to be defined by distinct boundaries.”–_Butler’s Practical Gram._, p. 66. “Neither of these solutions are correct.”– _Bullions, Lat. Gram._, p. 236. “Neither bear any sign of case at all.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, Sec.217.
“Each in their turn like Banquo’s monarchs stalk.”–_Byron_.
“And tell what each of them by th’other lose.”–_Shak., Cori._, iii, 2.
UNDER NOTE V.–VERB BETWEEN TWO NOMINATIVES.
“The quarrels of lovers is a renewal of love.”–_Adam’s Lat. Gram._, p. 156; _Alexander’s_, 49; _Gould’s_, 159; _Bullions’s_, 206. “Two dots, one placed above the other, is called _Sheva_.”–_Dr. Wilson’s Heb. Gram._, p. 43. “A few centuries, more or less, is a matter of small consequence.”–_Ib._ p. 31. “Pictures were the first step towards the art of writing. Hieroglyphicks was the second step.”–_Parker’s English Composition_, p. 27. “The comeliness of youth are modesty and frankness; of age, condescension and dignity.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 166. “Merit and good works is the end of man’s motion.”–_Lord Bacon_. “Divers philosophers hold that the lips is parcel of the mind.”–_Shakspeare_. “The clothing of the natives were the skins of wild beasts.”–_Indian Wars_, p. 92. “Prepossessions in favor of our nativ town, is not a matter of surprise.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 217. “Two shillings and six pence is half a crown, but not a half crown.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 150; _Bicknell’s_, ii, 53. “Two vowels, pronounced by a single impulse of the voice, and uniting in one sound, is called a dipthong.”–_Cooper’s Pl. and Pr. Gram._, p. 1. “Two or more sentences united together is called a Compound Sentence.”–_P. E. Day’s District School Gram._, p. 10. “Two or more words rightly put together, but not completing an entire proposition, is called a Phrase.”–_Ibid._ “But the common Number of Times are five.”–_The British Grammar_, p. 122. “Technical terms, injudiciously introduced, is another source of darkness in composition.”–_Jamieson’s Rhet._, p. 107. “The United States is the great middle division of North America.”–_Morse’s Geog._, p. 44. “A great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it.”–HUME: _Murray’s Gram._, p. 145; _Ingersoll’s_, 172; _Sanborn’s_, 192; _Smith’s_, 123; and others. “Here two tall ships becomes the victor’s prey.”–_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. ii, l. 1098. “The expenses incident to an outfit is surely no object.”–_The Friend_, Vol. iii., p. 200.
“Perhaps their loves, or else their sheep, Was all that did their silly thoughts so busy keep.”–_Milton_.
UNDER NOTE VI.–CHANGE THE NOMINATIVE.
“Much pains has been taken to explain all the kinds of words.”–_Infant School Gram._ p. 128. “Not less [_time_] than three years are spent in attaining this faculty.”–_Music of Nature_, p. 28. “Where this night are met in state Many a friend to gratulate His wish’d presence.”–_Milton’s Comus_. l. 948. “Peace! my darling, here’s no danger, Here’s no oxen near thy bed.”–_Watts._ “But every one of these are mere conjectures, and some of them very unhappy ones.”–_Coleridge’s Introduction_, p. 61. “The old theorists, calling the Interrogatives and Repliers, _adverbs_, is only a part of their regular system of naming words.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 374. “Where a series of sentences occur, place them in the order in which the facts occur.”–_Ib._, p. 264. “And that the whole in conjunction make a regular chain of causes and effects.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 275. “The origin of the Grecian, and Roman republics, though equally involved in the obscurities and uncertainties of fabulous events, present one remarkable distinction.”–_Adam’s Rhet._, i, 95. “In these respects, mankind is left by nature an unformed, unfinished creature.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 144. “The scripture are the oracles of God himself.”–HOOKER: _Joh. Dict., w. Oracle_. “And at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits.”–_Solomon’s Song_, vii, 13. “The preterit of _pluck, look_, and _toss_ are, in speech, pronounced _pluckt, lookt, tosst_.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 1850, Sec.68.
“Severe the doom that length of days impose, To stand sad witness of unnumber’d woes!”–_Melmoth_.
UNDER NOTE VII.–ADAPT FORM TO STYLE.
1. _Forms not proper for the Common or Familiar Style_.
“Was it thou that buildedst that house?”–_Inst._, p. 151. “That boy writeth very elegantly.”–_Ib._ “Couldest not thou write without blotting thy book?”–_Ib._ “Thinkest thou not it will rain to-day?”–_Ib._ “Doth not your cousin intend to visit you?”–_Ib._ “That boy hath torn my book.”–_Ib._ “Was it thou that spreadest the hay?”–_Ib._ “Was it James, or thou, that didst let him in?”–_Ib._ “He dareth not say a word.”–_Ib._ “Thou stoodest in my way and hinderedst me.”–_Ib._
“Whom see I?–Whom seest thou now?–Whom sees he?–Whom lovest thou most?–What dost thou to-day?–What person seest thou teaching that boy?–He hath two new knives.–Which road takest thou?–What child teaches he?”–_Ingersoll’s Gram._, p. 66. “Thou, who makest my shoes, sellest many more.”–_Ib._, p. 67.
“The English language hath been much cultivated during the last two hundred years. It hath been considerably polished and refined.”–_Lowth’s Gram., Pref._, p. iii. “This _stile_ is ostentatious, and doth not suit grave writing.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 82. “But custom hath now appropriated _who_ to persons, and _which_ to things.”–_Ib._, p. 97. “The indicative mood sheweth or declareth; as, _Ego amo_, I love: or else asketh a question; as, _Amas tu_? Dost thou love?”–_Paul’s Accidence_, Ed. of 1793, p. 16. “Though thou canst not do much for the cause, thou mayst and shouldst do something.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 143. “The support of so many of his relations, was a heavy task; but thou knowest he paid it cheerfully.”–_Murray’s Key_, R. 1, p. 180. “It may, and often doth, come short of it.”–_Campbell’s Rhetoric_, p. 160.
“‘Twas thou, who, while thou seem’dst to chide, To give me all thy pittance tried.”–_Mitford’s Blanch_, p. 78.
2. _Forms not proper for the Solemn or Biblical Style_.
“The Lord has prepaid his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom rules over all.”–See _Key_. “Thou answer’d them, O Lord our God: thou was a God that forgave them, though thou took vengeance of their inventions.”–See _Key_. “Then thou spoke in vision to thy Holy One, and said, I have laid help upon one that is mighty.”–See _Key_. “So then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that rules, but of God that shows mercy; who dispenses his blessings, whether temporal or spiritual, as seems good in his sight.”–See _Key_.
“Thou, the mean while, was blending with my thought; Yea, with my life, and life’s own secret joy.”–_Coleridge_.
UNDER NOTE VIII.–EXPRESS THE NOMINATIVE.
“Who is here so base, that would be a bondman?”–_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 249. “Who is here so rude, that would not be a Roman?”–_Ib._ “There is not a sparrow falls to the ground without his notice.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 300. “In order to adjust them so, as shall consist equally with the perspicuity and the strength of the period.”–_Ib._, p. 324; _Blair’s Rhet._, 118. “But, sometimes, there is a verb comest in.”–_Cobbett’s English Gram._, 248. “Mr. Prince has a genius would prompt him to better things.”–_Spectator_, No. 466. “It is this removes that impenetrable mist.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 362. “By the praise is given him for his courage.”–_Locke, on Education_, p. 214. “There is no man would be more welcome here.”–_Steele, Spect._, No. 544. “Between an antecedent and a consequent, or what goes before, and immediately follows.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 141. “And as connected with what goes before and follows.”– _Ib._, p. 354. “There is no man doth a wrong for the wrong’s sake.”–_Lord Bacon_. “All the various miseries of life, which people bring upon themselves by negligence and folly, and might have been avoided by proper care, are instances of this.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 108. “Ancient philosophers have taught many things in favour of morality, so far at least as respect justice and goodness towards our fellow-creatures.”–_Gospel its own Witness_, p. 56. “Indeed, if there be any such, have been, or appear to be of us, as suppose, there is not a wise man among us all, nor an honest man, that is able to judge betwixt his brethren; we shall not covet to meddle in their matter.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 504. “There were that drew back; there were that made shipwreck of faith: yea, there were that brought in damnable heresies.”–_Ib._, i, 466. “The nature of the cause rendered this plan altogether proper, and in similar situations is fit to be imitated.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 274. “This is an idiom to which our language is strongly inclined, and was formerly very prevalent.”– _Churchill’s Gram._, p. 150. “His roots are wrapped about the heap, and seeth the place of stones.”–_Job_, viii, 17.
“New York, Fifthmonth 3d, 1823.
“Dear friend, Am sorry to hear of thy loss; but hope it may be retrieved. Should be happy to render thee any assistance in my power. Shall call to see thee to-morrow morning. Accept assurances of my regard. A. B.”
“New York, May 3d, P. M., 1823.
“Dear Sir, Have just received the kind note favoured me with this morning; and cannot forbear to express my gratitude to you. On further information, find have not lost so much as at first supposed; and believe shall still be able to meet all my engagements. Should, however, be happy to see you. Accept, dear sir, my most cordial thanks. C. D.”–See _Brown’s Institutes_, p. 151.
“Will martial flames forever fire thy mind, And never, never be to Heaven resign’d?”–_Pope, Odys._, xii, 145.
UNDER NOTE IX.–APPLICATION OF MOODS.
_First Clause of the Note.–For the Subjunctive Present._
“He will not be pardoned, unless he repents.”–_Brown’s Institutes_, p. 191.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the verb _repents_, which is here used to express a future contingency, is in the indicative mood. But, according to the first clause of Note 9th to Rule 14th, “A future contingency is best expressed by a verb in the subjunctive present.” Therefore, _repents_ should be _repent_; thus, “He will not be pardoned, unless he _repent_.”]
“If thou findest any kernelwort in this marshy meadow, bring it to me.”–_Neef’s Method of Teaching_, p. 258. “If thou leavest the room, do not forget to shut that drawer.”–_Ib._, p. 246. “If thou graspest it stoutly, thou wilt not be hurt.”–_Ib._, p. 196. “On condition that he comes, I will consent to stay.”–_Murray’s Exerc._, p. 74. “If he is but discreet, he will succeed.”–_Inst._, p. 191. “Take heed that thou speakest not to Jacob.”–_Ib._ “If thou castest me off, I shall be miserable.”– _Ib._ “Send them to me, if thou pleasest.”–_Ib._ “Watch the door of thy lips, lest thou utterest folly.”–_Ib._ “Though a liar speaks the truth, he will hardly be believed.”–_Common School Manual_, ii, 124. “I will go unless I should be ill.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 300. “If the word or words understood are supplied, the true construction will be apparent.”– _Murray’s Exercises in Parsing_, p. 21. “Unless thou shalt see the propriety of the measure, we shall not desire thy support.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 209. “Unless thou shouldst make a timely retreat, the danger will be unavoidable.”–_Ib._, p. 209. “We may live happily, though our possessions are small.”–_Ib._, p. 202. “If they are carefully studied, they will enable the student to parse all the exercises.”–_Ib., Note_, p. 165. “If the accent is fairly preserved on the proper syllable, this drawling sound will never be heard.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 242. “One phrase may, in point of sense, be equivalent to another, though its grammatical nature is essentially different.”–_Ib._, p. 108. “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man.”–_Dr. Webster’s Bible_. “Thy skill will be the greater, if thou hittest it.”–_Putnam’s Analytical Reader_, p. 204. “Thy skill will be the greater if thou hit’st it.”–_Cobb’s N. A. Reader_, p. 321. “We shall overtake him though he should run.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 113; _Murray’s_, 207; _Smith’s_, 173. “We shall be disgusted if he gives us too much.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 388.
“What is’t to thee, if he neglect thy urn, Or without spices lets thy body burn?”–DRYDEN: _Joh. Dict., w. What._
_Second Clause of Note IX.–For the Subjunctive Imperfect._
“And so would I, if I was he.”–_Brown’s Institutes_, p. 191.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the verb _was_, which is here used to express a mere supposition, with indefinite time, is in the indicative mood. But, according to the second clause of Note 9th to Rule 14th, “A mere supposition, with indefinite time, is best expressed by a verb in the subjunctive imperfect.” Therefore, _was_ should be _were_; thus, “And so would I, if I _were_ he.”]
“If I was a Greek, I should resist Turkish despotism.”–_Cardell’s Elements of Gram._, p. 80. “If he was to go, he would attend to your business.”–_Ib._, p. 81. “If thou feltest as I do, we should soon decide.”–_Inst._, p. 191. “Though thou sheddest thy blood in the cause, it would but prove thee sincerely a fool.”–_Ib._ “If thou lovedst him, there would be more evidence of it.”–_Ib._ “If thou couldst convince him, he would not act accordingly.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 209. “If there was no liberty, there would be no real crime.”–_Formey’s Belles-Lettres_, p. 118. “If the house was burnt down, the case would be the same.”–_Foster’s Report_, i, 89. “As if the mind was not always in action, when it prefers any thing!”–_West, on Agency_, p. 38. “Suppose I was to say, ‘Light is a body.'”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 78. “If either oxygen or azote was omitted, life would be destroyed.”–_Gurney’s Evidences_, p. 155. “The verb _dare_ is sometimes used as if it was an auxiliary.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 132. “A certain lady, whom I could name, if it was necessary.”–_Spectator_, No. 536. “If the _e_ was dropped, _c_ and _g_ would assume their hard sounds.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 10. “He would no more comprehend it, than if it was the speech of a Hottentot.”–_Neef’s Sketch_, p. 112. “If thou knewest the gift of God,” &c.–_John_, iv, 10. “I wish I was at home.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 260. “Fact alone does not constitute right; if it does, general warrants were lawful.”–_Junius_, Let. xliv, p. 205. “Thou look’st upon thy boy as though thou guessest it.”–_Putnam’s Analytical Reader_, p. 202. “Thou look’st upon thy boy as though thou guessedst it.”–_Cobb’s N. A. Reader_, p. 320. “He fought as if he had contended for life.”–_Hiley’s Gram._, p. 92. “He fought as if he had been contending for his life.”–_Ib._, 92.
“The dewdrop glistens on thy leaf,
As if thou seem’st to shed a tear; As if thou knew’st my tale of grief,
Felt all my sufferings severe.”–_Alex. Letham_.
_Last Clause of Note IX.–For the Indicative Mood._
“If he know the way, he does not need a guide.”–_Brown’s Institutes_, p. 191.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the verb _know_, which is used to express a conditional circumstance assumed as a fact, is in the subjunctive mood. But, according to the last clause of Note 9th to Rule 14th, “A conditional circumstance assumed as a fact, requires the indicative mood.” Therefore, _know_ should be _knows_; thus, “If he _knows_ the way, he does not need a guide.”]
“And if there be no difference, one of them must be superfluous, and ought to be rejected.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 149. “I cannot say that I admire this construction, though it be much used.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 172. “We are disappointed, if the verb do not immediately follow it.”–_Ib._, p. 177. “If it were they who acted so ungratefully, they are doubly in fault.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 223. “If art become apparent, it disgusts the reader.”–_Jamieson’s Rhet._, p. 80. “Though perspicuity be more properly a rhetorical than a grammatical quality, I thought it better to include it in this book.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 238. “Although the efficient cause be obscure, the final cause of those sensations lies open.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 29. “Although the barrenness of language, and the want of words be doubtless one cause of the invention of tropes.”–_Ib._, p. 135. “Though it enforce not its instructions, yet it furnishes us with a greater variety.”–_Ib._, p. 353. “In other cases, though the idea be one, the words remain quite separate”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 140. “Though the Form of our language be more simple, and has that peculiar Beauty.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. v. “Human works are of no significancy till they be completed.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 245. “Our disgust lessens gradually till it vanish altogether.”–_Ib._, i, 338. “And our relish improves by use, till it arrive at perfection.”–_Ib._, i, 338. “So long as he keep himself in his own proper element.”–COKE: _ib._, i, 233. “Whether this translation were ever published or not I am wholly ignorant.”–_Sale’s Koran_, i, 13. “It is false to affirm, ‘As it is day, it is light,’ unless it actually be day.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 246. “But we may at midnight affirm, ‘If it be day, it is light.'”–_Ibid._ “If the Bible be true, it is a volume of unspeakable interest.”–_Dickinson_. “Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”–_Heb._, v, 8. “If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?”–_Matt._, xxii, 45.
“‘Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill Appear in writing or in judging ill.”–_Pope, Ess. on Crit._
UNDER NOTE X.–FALSE SUBJUNCTIVES.
“If a man have built a house, the house is his.”–_Wayland’s Moral Science_, p. 286.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the verb _have built_, which extends the subjunctive mood into the perfect tense, has the appearance of disagreeing with its nominative _man_. But, according to Note 10th to Rule 14th, “Every such use or extension of the subjunctive mood, as the reader will be likely to mistake for a discord between the verb and its nominative, ought to be avoided as an impropriety.” Therefore, _have built_ should be _has built_; thus, “If a man _has built_ a house, the house is his.”]
“If God have required them of him, as is the fact, he has time.”–_Ib._, p. 351. “Unless a previous understanding to the contrary have been had with the Principal.”–_Berrian’s Circular_, p. 5. “O if thou have Hid them in some flowery cave.”–_Milton’s Comus_, l. 239. “O if Jove’s will Have linked that amorous power to thy soft lay.”–_Milton, Sonnet_ 1. “SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD: If thou love, If thou loved, If thou have loved, If thou had loved, If thou shall or will love, If thou shall or will have loved.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 71; _Cooper’s Murray_, 58; _D. Adams’s Gram._, 48; and others. “Till religion, the pilot of the soul, have lent thee her unfathomable coil.”–_Tupper’s Thoughts_, p. 170. “Whether nature or art contribute most to form an orator, is a trifling inquiry.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 338. “Year after year steals something from us; till the decaying fabric totter of itself, and crumble at length into dust.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 225. “If spiritual pride have not entirely vanquished humility.”–_West’s Letters_, p. 184. “Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter.”–_Exodus_, xxi, 31. “It is doubtful whether the object introduced by way of simile, relate to what goes before, or to what follows.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 45.
“And bridle in thy headlong wave,
Till thou our summons answer’d have.”–_Milt., Comus_, l. 887.
RULE XV.–FINITE VERBS.
When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the Verb must agree with it in the plural number: as, “The _council were divided_.”–“The _college_ of cardinals _are_ the electors of the pope.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 176. “Quintus Curtius relates, that a _number_ of them _were drowned_ in the river Lycus.”–_Home’s Art of Thinking_, p. 125.
“Yon _host come_ learn’d in academic rules.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, vii, 401.
“While heaven’s high _host_ on hallelujahs _live_.” –_Young’s N. Th._, iv, 378.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XV.
OBS. 1.–To this rule there are _no exceptions_; because, the collective noun being a name which even in the singular number “signifies _many_,” the verb which agrees with it, can never properly be singular, unless the collection be taken literally as one aggregate, and not as “conveying the idea of plurality.” Thus, the collective noun singular being in general susceptible of two senses, and consequently admitting two modes of concord, the form of the verb, whether singular or plural, becomes the principal index to the particular sense in which the nominative is taken. After such a noun, we can use either a singular verb, agreeing with it literally, strictly, formally, according to Rule 14th; as, “The whole _number_ WAS two thousand and six hundred;” or a plural one, agreeing with it figuratively, virtually, ideally, according to Rule 15th; as, “The whole _number_ WERE two thousand and six hundred.”–_2 Chron._, xxvi, 12. So, when the collective noun is an antecedent, the relative having in itself no distinction of the numbers, its verb becomes the index to the sense of all three; as, “Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the _remnant that_ IS _left._”–_Isaiah_, xxxvii, 4. “Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the _remnant that_ ARE _left_.”–_2 Kings_, xix, 4. Ordinarily the word _remnant_ conveys no idea of plurality; but, it being here applied to persons, and having a meaning to which the mere singular neuter noun is not well adapted, the latter construction is preferable to the former. The Greek version varies more in the two places here cited; being plural in Isaiah, and singular in Kings. The Latin Vulgate, in both, is, “_pro reliquiis quae repertae sunt_:” i.e., “for the _remains_, or _remnants_, that are found.”
OBS. 2.–Dr. Adam’s rule is this: “A collective noun may be joined with a verb either of the singular or of the plural number; as, _Multitudo stat_, or _stant_; the multitude stands, or stand.”–_Latin and English Gram._ To this doctrine, Lowth, Murray, and others, add: “Yet not without regard to the _import of the word_, as conveying _unity or plurality of idea_.”–_Lowth_, p. 74; _Murray_, 152. If these latter authors mean, that collective nouns are permanently divided in import, so that some are invariably determined to the idea of unity, and others to that of plurality, they are wrong in principle; for, as Dr. Adam remarks, “A collective noun, when joined with a verb singular, expresses many considered as one whole; but when joined with a verb plural, it signifies many separately, or as individuals.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 154. And if this alone is what their addition means, it is entirely useless; and so, for all the purposes of parsing, is the singular half of the rule itself. Kirkham divides this rule into two, one for “unity of idea,” and the other for “plurality of idea,” shows how each is to be applied in parsing, according to his “_systematick order_;” and then, turning round with a gallant tilt at his own work, condemns both, as idle fabrications, which it were better to reject than to retain; alleging that, “The existence of such a thing as ‘unity or plurality of idea,’ as applicable to nouns of this class, is _doubtful_.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 59.[394] How then shall a plural verb or pronoun, after a collective noun, be parsed, seeing it does not agree with the noun by the ordinary rule of agreement? Will any one say, that every such construction is _bad English_? If this cannot be maintained, rules eleventh and fifteenth of this series are necessary. But when the noun conveys the idea of unity or takes the plural form, the verb or pronoun has no other than a literal agreement by the common rule; as,
“A _priesthood_, such _as_ Baal’s _was_ of old, A _people_, such _as_ never _was_ till now.”–_Cowper_.
OBS. 3.–Of the construction of the verb and collective noun, a late British author gives the following account: “Collective nouns are substantives _which_ signify _many in the singular number_. Collective nouns are of two sorts: 1. Those which cannot become plural like other substantives; as, nobility, mankind, &c. 2. Those which can be made plural by the usual rules for a substantive; as, ‘A multitude, multitudes; a crowd, crowds;’ &c. Substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural, generally require a plural verb. They are cattle, cavalry, clergy, commonalty, gentry, laity, mankind, nobility, peasantry people, populace, public, rabble, &c. [;] as, ‘The public _are_ informed.’ Collective nouns which form a regular plural, such as, number, numbers; multitude, multitudes; have, like all other substantives, a singular verb, when they are in the singular number; and a plural verb, when they are in the plural number; as, ‘A number of people _is_ assembled; Numbers _are_ assembled.’–‘The fleet _was_ dispersed; a _part_ of it _was_ injured; the several _parts are_ now collected.'”– _Nixon’s Parser_, p. 120. To this, his main text, the author appends a note, from which the following passages are extracted: “There are few persons acquainted with Grammar, who may not have noticed, in many authors as well as speakers, an irregularity in supposing collective nouns to have, at one time, a singular meaning, and consequently to require a singular verb; and, at an other time, to have a plural meaning, and therefore to require a plural verb. This irregularity appears to have arisen from the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun. This defect the author has endeavoured to supply; and, upon his definition, he has founded the two rules above. It is allowed on all sides that, hitherto, no satisfactory rules have been produced to enable the pupil to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, when a collective noun should have a singular verb, and when a plural one. A rule that simply tells its examiner, that when a collective noun in the nominative case conveys the idea of unity, its verb should be singular; and when it implies plurality, its verb should be plural, is of very little value; for such a rule will prove the _pupil’s being in the right_, whether he _should_ put the verb in the singular or the plural.”–_Ibid._
OBS. 4.–The foregoing explanation has many faults; and whoever trusts to it, or to any thing like it, will certainly be very much misled. In the first place, it is remarkable that an author who could suspect in others “the _want of a clear idea_ of the nature of a collective noun,” should have hoped to supply the defect by a definition so ambiguous and ill-written as is the one above. Secondly, his subdivision of this class of nouns into two sorts, is both baseless and nugatory; for that plurality which has reference to the individuals of an assemblage, has no manner of connexion or affinity with that which refers to more than one such aggregate; nor is there any interference of the one with the other, or any ground at all for supposing that the absence of the latter is, has been, or ought to be, the occasion for adopting the former. Hence, thirdly, his two rules, (though, so far as they go, they seem not untrue in themselves,) by their limitation under this false division, exclude and deny the true construction of the verb with the greater part of our collective nouns. For, fourthly, the first of these rules rashly presumes that any collective noun which in the singular number implies a plurality of individuals, is consequently destitute of any other plural; and the second accordingly supposes that no such nouns as, council, committee, jury, meeting, society, assembly, court, college, company, army, host, band, retinue, train, multitude, number, part, half, portion, majority, minority, remainder, set, sort, kind, class, nation, tribe, family, race, and a hundred more, can ever be properly used with a plural verb, except when they assume the plural form. To prove the falsity of this supposition, is needless. And, finally, the objection which this author advances against the common rules, is very far from proving them useless, or not greatly preferable to his own. If they do not in every instance enable the student to ascertain with certainty which form of concord he ought to prefer, it is only because no rules can possibly tell a man precisely when he ought to entertain the idea of unity, and when that of plurality. In some instances, these ideas are unavoidably mixed or associated, so that it is of little or no consequence which form of the verb we prefer; as, “Behold, the _people_ IS _one_, and _they have all_ one language.”–_Gen._, xi, 6.
“Well, if a king’s a lion, at the least The _people_ ARE a many-headed _beast_.”–_Pope_, Epist. i, l. 120.
OBS. 5.–Lindley Murray says, “On many occasions, _where_ a noun of multitude is used, it is very difficult to decide, whether the verb should be in the singular, or in the plural number; and this difficulty has induced some grammarians to cut the knot at once, and to assert that every noun of multitude must always be considered as conveying the idea of unity.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 153. What these occasions, or who these grammarians, are, I know not; but it is certain that the difficulty here imagined does not concern the application of such rules as require the verb and pronoun to conform to the sense intended; and, where there is no apparent impropriety in adopting either number, there is no occasion to raise a scruple as to which is right. To cut knots by dogmatism, and to tie them by sophistry, are employments equally vain. It cannot be denied that there are in every multitude both a unity and a plurality, one or the other of which must be preferred as the principle of concord for the verb or the pronoun, or for both. Nor is the number of nouns small, or their use unfrequent, which, according to our best authors, admit of either construction: though Kirkham assails and repudiates _his own rules_, because, “Their application is quite limited.”–_Grammar in Familiar Lectures_, p. 59.
OBS. 6.–Murray’s doctrine seems to be, not that collective nouns are generally susceptible of two senses in respect to number, but that some naturally convey the idea of unity, others, that of plurality, and a few, either of these senses. The last, which are probably ten times more numerous than all the rest, he somehow merges or forgets, so as to speak of _two classes_ only: saying, “Some nouns of multitude certainly convey to the mind an idea of plurality, others, that of a whole as one thing, and others again, sometimes that of unity, and sometimes that of plurality. On this ground, it is warrantable, and consistent with the nature of things, to apply a plural verb and pronoun _to the one class_, and a singular verb and pronoun _to the other_. We shall immediately perceive the _impropriety_ of the following constructions: ‘The clergy _has_ withdrawn _itself_ from the temporal courts;’ ‘The assembly _was_ divided in _its_ opinion;’ &c.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 153. The simple fact is, that _clergy, assembly_, and perhaps every other collective noun, may sometimes convey the idea of unity, and sometimes that of plurality; but an “_opinion_” or a voluntary “_withdrawing_” is a _personal_ act or quality; _wherefore_ it is here more consistent to adopt the plural sense and construction, in which alone we take the collection as individuals, or persons.
OBS. 7.–Although a uniformity of number is generally preferable to diversity, in the construction of words that refer to the same collective noun: and although many grammarians deny that any departure from such uniformity is allowable; yet, if the singular be put first, a plural pronoun may sometimes follow without obvious impropriety: as, “So Judah _was_ carried away out of _their_ land.”–_2 Kings_, xxv, 21. “Israel is reproved and threatened for _their_ impiety and idolatry.”–_Friends’ Bible, Hosea_, x. “There _is_ the enemy _who wait_ to give us battle.”–_Murray’s Introductory Reader_, p. 36. When the idea of plurality predominates in the author’s mind, a plural verb is sometimes used _before_ a collective noun that has the singular article _an_ or _a_; as, “There _are a sort_ of authors, _who seem_ to take up with appearances.”– _Addison_. “Here _are a number_ of facts or incidents leading to the end in view.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 296. “There _are a great number_ of exceedingly good writers among the French.”–_Maunder’s Gram._, p. 11.
“There in the forum _swarm a numerous train_, The subject of debate a townsman slain.” –_Pope, Iliad_, B. xviii, l. 578.
OBS. 8.–Collective nouns, when they are merely _partitive_ of the plural, like the words _sort_ and _number_ above, are usually connected with a plural verb, even though they have a singular definitive; as, “And _this sort of_ adverbs commonly _admit_ of Comparison.”–_Buchanan’s English Syntax_, p. 64. Here, perhaps, it would be better to say, “_Adverbs of this sort_ commonly admit of comparison.” “_A part_ of the exports _consist_ of raw silk.”–_Webster’s Improved Gram._, p. 100. This construction is censured by Murray, in his octavo Gram., p. 148; where we are told, that the verb should agree with the first noun only. Dr. Webster alludes to this circumstance, in _improving_ his grammar, and admits that, “A part of the exports _consists_, seems to be more correct.”–_Improved Gram._, p. 100. Yet he retains his original text, and obviously thinks it a light thing, that, “in some cases,” his rules or examples “may not be vindicable.” (See Obs. 14th, 15th, and 16th, on Rule 14th, of this code.) It would, I think, be better to say, “The exports consist _partly_ of raw silk.” Again: “_A multitude_ of Latin words _have_, of late, been poured in upon us.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 94. Better, perhaps: “_Latin words, in great multitude_, have, of late, been poured in upon us.” So: “For _the bulk_ of _writers_ are very apt to confound them with each other.”–_Ib._, p. 97. Better: “For _most writers_ are very apt to confound them with each other.” In the following example, (here cited as _Kames_ has it, _El. of Crit._, ii, 247,) either the verb _is_, or the phrase, “_There are some moveless men_” might as well have been used:
“There _are a sort_ of men, whose visages Do cream and mantle like a standing pond.”–_Shak._
OBS. 9.–Collections of _things_ are much less frequently and less properly regarded as individuals, or under the idea of plurality, than collections of _persons_. This distinction may account for the difference of construction in the two clauses of the following example; though I rather doubt whether a plural verb ought to be used in the former: “The _number_ of commissioned _officers_ in the guards _are_ to the marching regiments as one to eleven: the _number_ of _regiments_ given to the guards, compared with those given to the line, _is_ about three to one.”–_Junius_, p. 147. Whenever the multitude is spoken of with reference to a personal act or quality, the verb ought, as I before suggested, to be in the plural number; as, “The public _are informed_.”–“The plaintiff’s counsel _have assumed_ a difficult task.”–“The committee _were instructed_ to prepare a remonstrance.” “The English nation _declare_ they are grossly injured by _their_ representatives.”–_Junius_, p. 147. “One particular class of men _are_ permitted to call _themselves_ the King’s friends.”–_Id._, p. 176. “The Ministry _have_ realized the compendious ideas of Caligula.”–_Id._, p. 177. It is in accordance with this principle, that the following sentences have plural verbs and pronouns, though their definitives are singular, and perhaps ought to be singular: “So depraved _were that people_ whom in their history we so much admire.”–HUME: _M’Ilvaine’s Lect._, p. 400. “Oh, _this people have sinned_ a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.”–_Exodus_, xxxii, 31. “_This people_ thus gathered _have_ not wanted those trials.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 460. The following examples, among others, are censured by Priestley, Murray, and the copyists of the latter, without sufficient discrimination, and for a reason which I think fallacious; namely, “because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind:”–“The court of Rome _were_ not without solicitude.”–_Hume_. “The house of Lords _were_ so much influenced by these reasons.”–_Id._ See _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 188; _Murray’s_, 152; _R. C. Smith’s_, 129; _Ingersoll’s_, 248; and others.
OBS. 10.–In general, a collective noun, unless it be made plural in form, no more admits a plural adjective before it, than any other singular noun. Hence the impropriety of putting _these_ or _those_ before _kind_ or _sort_; as, “_These kind_ of knaves I know.”–_Shakspeare_. Hence, too, I infer that _cattle_ is not a collective noun, as Nixon would have it to be, but an irregular plural which has no singular; because we can say _these cattle_ or _those cattle_, but neither a bullock nor a herd is ever called _a cattle, this cattle_, or _that cattle_. And if “_cavalry, clergy, commonalty_,” &c., were like this word, they would all be plurals also, and not “substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural.” Whence it appears, that the writer who most broadly charges others with not understanding the nature of a collective noun, has most of all misconceived it himself. If there are not _many clergies_, it is because _the clergy_ is one body, with one Head, and not because it is in a particular sense many. And, since the forms of words are not necessarily confined to things that exist, who shall say that the plural word _clergies_, as I have just used it, is not good English?
OBS. 11.–If we say, “_these people_,” “_these gentry_,” “_these folk_,” we make _people, gentry_, and _folk_, not only irregular plurals, but plurals to which there are no correspondent singulars; but by these phrases, we must mean certain individuals, and not more than one people, gentry, or folk. But these names are sometimes collective nouns singular; and, as such, they may have verbs of either number, according to the sense; and may also form regular plurals, as _peoples_, and _folks_; though we seldom, if ever, speak of _gentries_; and _folks_ is now often irregularly applied to persons, as if one person were _a folk_. So _troops_ is sometimes irregularly, if not improperly, put for _soldiers_, as if a soldier were _a troop_; as, “While those gallant _troops_, by _whom_ every hazardous, every laborious service is performed, are left to perish.”–_Junius_, p. 147. In Genesis, xxvii, 29th, we read, “Let _people_ serve thee, and nations bow down to thee.” But, according to the Vulgate, it ought to be, “Let _peoples_ serve thee, and nations bow down to thee;” according to the Septuagint, “Let _nations_ serve thee, and _rulers_ bow down to thee.” Among Murray’s “instances of false syntax,” we find the text, “This people draweth near to me with their mouth,” &c.–_Octavo Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 49. This is corrected in his Key, thus: “_These_ people _draw_ near to me with their mouth.”–_Ib._, ii, 185. The Bible has it: “This people _draw near me_ with their mouth.”–_Isaiah_, xxix, 13. And again: “This people _draweth nigh unto_ me with their mouth.,”–_Matt._, xv, 8. Dr. Priestley thought it ought to be, “This people _draws_ nigh unto me with their _mouths_.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 63. The second evangelist omits some words: “This people _honoureth_ me with their lips, but _their heart_ is far from me.”–_Mark_, vii, 6. In my opinion, the plural verb is here to be preferred; because the pronoun _their_ is plural, and the worship spoken of was a personal rather than a national act. Yet the adjective _this_ must be retained, if the text specify the Jews as a people. As to the words _mouth_ and _heart_, they are to be understood figuratively of _speech_ and _love_; and I agree not with Priestley, that the plural number must necessarily be used. See Note 4th to Rule 4th.
OBS. 12.–In making an assertion concerning a number or quantity with some indefinite excess or allowance, we seem sometimes to take for the subject of the verb what is really the object of a preposition; as, “In a sermon, there _may be_ from three to five, or six heads.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 313. “In those of Germany, there _are_ from eight to twelve professors.”– _Dwight, Lit. Convention_, p. 138. “About a million and a half _was subscribed_ in a few days.”–_N. Y. Daily Advertiser_. “About one hundred feet of the Muncy dam _has been swept off_.”–_N. Y. Observer_. “Upwards of one hundred thousand dollars _have been appropriated_.”–_Newspaper_. “But I fear there _are_ between twenty and thirty of them.”–_Tooke’s Diversions_, ii, 441. “Besides which, there _are_ upwards of fifty smaller islands.”–_Balbi’s Geog._, p. 30. “On board of which _embarked_ upwards of three hundred passengers.”–_Robertson’s Amer._, ii, 419. The propriety of using _above_ or _upwards of_ for _more than_, is questionable, but the practice is not uncommon. When there is a preposition before what seems at first to be the subject of the verb, as in the foregoing instances, I imagine there is an ellipsis of the word _number, amount, sum_ or _quantity_; the first of which words is a collective noun and may have a verb either singular or plural: as, “In a sermon, there may be _any number_ from three to five or six heads.” This is awkward, to be sure; but what does the Doctor’s sentence _mean_, unless it is, that there _may be an optional number_ of heads, varying from three to six?
OBS. 13.–Dr. Webster says, “When an aggregate amount is expressed by the plural names of the particulars composing that amount, the verb may be in the singular number; as, ‘There _was_ more than a hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling.’ _Mavor’s Voyages_.” To this he adds, “However repugnant to the principles of grammar this may seem at first view, the practice is correct; for the affirmation is not made of the individual parts or divisions named, the _pounds_, but of the entire sum or amount.”–_Philosophical Gram._, p. 146; _Improved Gram._, p. 100. The fact is, that the Doctor here, as in some other instances, deduces a false rule from a correct usage. It is plain that either the word _more_, taken substantively, or the noun to which it relates as an adjective, is the only nominative to the verb _was_. Mavor does not affirm that there _were_ a hundred and fitly thousand pounds; but that there _was more_–i.e., more _money_ than so many pounds _are_, or _amount to_. Oliver B. Peirce, too. falls into a multitude of strange errors respecting the nature of _more than_, and the construction of other words that accompany these. See his “Analytical Rules,” and the manner in which he applies them, in “_The Grammar_,” p. 195 _et seq._
OBS. 14.–Among certain educationists,–grammarians, arithmeticians, schoolmasters, and others,–there has been of late not a little dispute concerning the syntax of the phraseology which we use, or should use, in expressing _multiplication_, or in speaking of _abstract numbers_. For example: is it better to say, “Twice one _is_ two,” or, “Twice one _are_ two?”–“Two times one _is_ two,” or, “Two times one _are_ two?”–“Twice two _is_ four,” or, “Twice two _are_ four?”–“Thrice one _is_ or _are_, three?”–“Three times one _is_, or _are_, three?”–“Three times naught _is_, or _are_, naught?”–“Thrice three _is_, or _are_, nine?”–“Three times four _is_, or _are_, twelve?”–“Seven times three _make_, or _makes_, twenty-one?”–“Three times his age _do_ not, or _does_ not, equal mine?”–“Three times the quantity _is_ not, or _are_ not, sufficient?”–“Three quarters of the men were discharged; and three quarters of the money _was_, or _were_, sent back?”–“As 2 _is_ to 4, so _is_ 6 to 12;” or, “As two _are_ to four, so _are_ six to twelve?”
OBS. 15.–Most of the foregoing expressions, though all are perhaps intelligible enough in common practice, are, in some respect, difficult of analysis, or grammatical resolution. I think it possible, however, to frame an argument of some plausibility in favour of every one of them. Yet it is hardly to be supposed, that any _teacher_ will judge them all to be alike justifiable, or feel no interest in the questions which have been raised about them. That the language of arithmetic is often defective or questionable in respect to grammar, may be seen not only in many an ill choice between the foregoing variant and contrasted modes of expression, but in sundry other examples, of a somewhat similar character, for which it may be less easy to find advocates and published arguments. What critic will not judge the following phraseology to be faulty? “4 times two units _is_ 8 units, and 4 times 5 tens _is_ twenty tens.”–_Chase’s Common School Arithmetic_, 1848, p. 42. Or this? “1 time 1 is l. 2 times 1 are 2; 1 time 4 is 4, 2 times 4 are 8.”–_Ray’s Arithmetic_, 1853. Or this? “8 and 7 _is_ 15, 9’s out leaves 6; 3 and 8 _is_ 11, 9’s out leaves 2.”–_Babcock’s Practical Arithmetic_, 1829, p. 22. Or this again? “3 times 3 _is_ 9, and 2 we had to carry _is_ 11.”–_Ib._, p. 20.
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_ (Sec.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 Sec.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 haec.”–“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. Caesar_.
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. Caesar_.
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. (Sec.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, Sec. 555. This is equivalent to