saying, that “one and the same sentence” _may be two different sentences_; may, without error, be understood in two different senses; may be rightly taken, resolved, and parsed in two different ways! Nay, it is equivalent to a denial of the old logical position, that “It is impossible for a thing _to be_ and _not be_ at the same time;” for it supposes “_but_,” in the instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and _not_ a conjunction, both a preposition and _not_ a preposition, “_as the case may be_!” It is true, that “one and the same word” may sometimes be differently parsed _by different grammarians_, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the expression itself is equivocal. “All fled _but John_,” is thought to mean equally well, “All fled _but he_,” and, “All fled _but him_;” while these latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore erroneous, is to be _corrected_, rather than parsed in any way. But I deny both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics profess to find among the said phrases. “_John fled not, but all the rest fled_,” is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form, “All fled but _him_,” it is told ungrammatically; in the other two, correctly.
OBS. 18.–In Latin, _cum_ with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed to have, the force of the conjunction _et_ with a nominative; as, “Dux _cum_ aliquot principibus capiuntur.”–LIVY: _W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 131. In imitation of this construction, some English writers have substituted _with_ for _and_, and varied the verb accordingly; as, “A long course of time, _with_ a variety of accidents and circumstances, _are_ requisite to produce those revolutions.”–HUME: _Allen’s Gram._, p. 131; _Ware’s_, 12; _Priestley’s_, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his proof text under the following observation: “It is not necessary that the two _subjects of an affirmation_ should stand in the very same construction, to require the verb to be in the plural number. If one of them be made to depend upon the other _by a connecting particle_, it may, _in some cases_, have the same force, as if it were independent of it.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 186. Lindley Murray, on the contrary, condemns this doctrine, and after citing the same example with others, says: “It is however, proper to observe that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by _the just principles_ of construction.”– _Octavo Gram._, p. 150. He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it. All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it. And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek. They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought. Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus assumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty.
OBS. 19.–Dr. Adam simply remarks, “The plural is sometimes used after the preposition _cum_ put for _et_; as, _Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt_. Virg.”–_Latin and English Gram._, p. 207; _Gould’s Adam’s Latin Gram._, p. 204; _W. Allen’s English Gram._, 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better. Alexander has it in a worse form still: “Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt.”–_Latin Gram._, p. 47. Virgil’s words are, “_Cana_ FIDES, _et_ VESTA, _Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt_.”–_AEneid_, B. i, l. 296. Nor is _cum_ here “put for _et_,” unless we suppose also an antiptosis of _Remo fratre_ for _Remus frater_; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they _correct_ in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: “The palace of Pizarro, _together with_ the houses of several of his adherents, _were_ pillaged by the soldiers.”– _Hist. of Amer._, Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, “_were_” ought to be _was_. Secondly, if _were_ be retained, “_together with_” ought to be changed to _and_, or _and also_. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, “The palace of Pizarro, _as well as_ the houses of several of his adherents, _was_ pillaged by the soldiers.” Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: “And there appeared _unto them_ Elias, _with_ Moses; and _they_ were talking with Jesus.” If this text meant that _the three disciples_ were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, “And, behold, there appeared unto them _Moses and Elias, talking_ with him;” and our version in Luke is, “And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias.”–Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the pronoun _they_, which our translators inserted, was meant for “_Elias with Moses_;” but the Greek verb for “_appeared_,” as used by Mark, is _singular_, and agrees only with Elias. “[Greek: _Kai ophthae autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai haesan syllalountes to Iaesoy_.]”–“Et _apparuit_ illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu.”–_Montanus_. “Et _visus est_ eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu.”–_Beza_. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: “Et iis virent paroitre _Moyse et Elie_, qui s’entretenoient avec Jesus.” That is, “And there appeared to them _Moses and Elias_, who were talking with Jesus.” Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, “And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and _these two_ were talking with Jesus.” There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, “The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, _who with_ his brethren and sons _were_ twelve.”–_1 Chron._, xxv, 9. Better: “_and he_, his brethren, and _his_ sons, were twelve.”
OBS. 20.–Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting _with_ for _and_; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such “a sort of addition made to it.” The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable example, “Sidmouth, _with_ Oliver the _spye_, have brought Brandreth to the block;” or, as his late editions have it, “The _Tyrant, with_ the _Spy, have_ brought _Peter_ to the block.” He adds: “We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, _has_ or _have_. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb.” Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use _and_, and not _with_? After some further illustrations, he says: “When _with_ means _along with, together with, in Company with_, and the like, it is nearly the same as _and_; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] ‘He, with his brothers, _are_ able to do much.’ Not, ‘_is_ able to do much.’ If the pronoun be used instead of _brothers_, it will be in the objective case: ‘He, _with_ them, _are_ able to do much.’ But this is _no impediment_ to the including of the noun (represented by _them_) in the nominative.” I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist! The following is his last example: “‘Zeal, with discretion, _do_ much;’ and not ‘_does_ much;’ for we mean, on the contrary, that it _does nothing_. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ.” This author’s examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, “Godliness _with_ contentment _is_ great gain:”–_1 Tim._, vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett’s principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its _meaning_? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?
OBS. 21.–There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a real one,) in which there is either an ellipsis of the preposition _with_, or else the verb is made singular because the first noun only is its true subject, and the others are explanatory nominatives to which the same verb must be understood in the plural number; as, “_A torch_, snuff and all, _goes out_ in a moment, when dipped in the vapour.”–ADDISON: _in Johnson’s Dict., w. All_. “Down _comes_ the _tree_, nest, eagles, and all.”–See _All, ibidem_. Here _goes_ and _comes_ are necessarily made singular, the former agreeing with _torch_ and the latter with _tree_; and, if the other nouns, which are like an explanatory parenthesis, are nominatives, as they appear to me to be, they must be subjects of _go_ and _come_ understood. Cobbett teaches us to say, “The bag, _with_ the guineas and dollars in it, _were_ stolen,” and not, _was_ stolen. “For,” says he, “if we say _was_ stolen, it is possible for us to mean, that the _bag only_ was stolen,”–_English Gram._, 246. And I suppose he would say, “The bag, guineas, dollars, and all, _were_ stolen,” and not, “_was_ stolen;” for here a rule of syntax might be urged, in addition to his false argument from the sense. But the meaning of the former sentence is, “The bag was stolen, with the guineas and dollars in it;” and the meaning of the latter is, “The bag was stolen, guineas, dollars, and all.” Nor can there be any doubt about the meaning, place the words which way you will; and whatever, in either case, may be the true construction of the words in the parenthetical or explanatory phrase, they should not, I think, prevent the verb from agreeing with the first noun only. But if the other nouns intervene without affecting this concord, and without a preposition to govern them, it may be well to distinguish them in the punctuation; as, “The bag, (guineas, dollars, and all,) was stolen.”
NOTES TO RULE XVI.
NOTE I.–When the conjunction _and_ between two nominatives appears to require a plural verb, but such form of the verb is not agreeable, it is better to reject or change the connective, that the verb may stand correctly in the singular number; as, “There _is_ a peculiar force _and_ beauty in this figure.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 224. Better: “There is a peculiar force, _as well as a peculiar_ beauty, in this figure.” “What _means_ this restless stir and commotion of mind?”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 242. Better: “What means this restless stir, _this_ commotion of mind?”
NOTE II.–When two subjects or antecedents are connected, one of which is taken affirmatively, and the other negatively, they belong to different propositions; and the verb or pronoun must agree with the affirmative subject, and be understood to the other: as “Diligent _industry_, and not mean savings, _produces_ honourable competence.”–“Not a loud _voice_ but strong _proofs bring_ conviction.”–“My _poverty_, but not my will, _consents_.”–_Shakespeare_.
NOTE III.–When two subjects or antecedents are connected by _as well as, but_, or _save_, they belong to different propositions; and, (unless one of them is preceded by the adverb _not_,) the verb and pronoun must agree with the former and be understood to the latter: as, “_Veracity_, as well as justice, _is_ to be our rule of life.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 283. “The lowest _mechanic_, as well as the richest citizen, _may boast_ that thousands of _his_ fellow-creatures are employed for _him_.”–_Percival’s Tales_, ii, 177. “These _principles_, as well as every just rule of criticism, _are founded_ upon the sensitive part of our nature.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. xxvi. “_Nothing_ but wailings _was_ heard.”–“_None_ but thou _can aid_ us.”–“No mortal _man_, save he,” &c., “_had e’er survived_ to say _he_ saw.”–_Sir W. Scott_.
NOTE IV.–When two or more subjects or antecedents are preceded by the adjective _each, every_, or _no_, they are taken separately; and, (except _no_ be followed by a plural noun,) they require the verb and pronoun to be in the singular number: as, “No rank, no honour, no fortune, no condition in life, _makes_ the guilty mind happy.”–“Every phrase and every figure _which_ he uses, _tends_ to render the picture more lively and complete.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 179.
“And every sense, and every heart, _is_ joy.”–_Thomson_.
“Each beast, each insect, happy in _its_ own.”–_Pope_.
NOTE V.–When any words or terms are to be taken conjointly as subjects or antecedents, the conjunction _and_, (in preference to _with, or, nor_, or any thing else,) must connect them. The following sentence is therefore inaccurate; _with_ should be _and_; or else _were_ should be _was_: “One of them, [the] wife of Thomas Cole, _with_ her husband, _were_ shot down, the others escaped.”–_Hutchinson’s Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 86. So, in the following couplet, _or_ should be _and_, or else _engines_ should be _engine_:
“What if the head, the eye, _or_ ear repined, To serve mere _engines_ to the ruling mind?”–_Pope_.
NOTE VI.–Improper omissions must be supplied; but when there occurs a true ellipsis in the construction of joint nominatives or joint antecedents, the verb or pronoun must agree with them in the plural, just as if all the words were expressed: as, “The _second_ and the _third Epistle_ of John _are_ each but one short chapter.”–“The metaphorical and the literal meaning _are_ improperly mixed.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 339. “The Doctrine of Words, separately consider’d, and in a Sentence, _are_ Things distinct enough.”–_Brightland’s Gram._, Pref., p. iv. Better perhaps: “The doctrine of words separately considered, and _that of words_ in a sentence, _are_ things distinct enough.”
“The _Curii’s_ and the _Camilli’s_ little _field_, To vast extended territories _yield_.”–_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. i, l. 320.
NOTE VII.–Two or more distinct subject phrases connected by _and_, require a plural verb, and generally a plural noun too, if a nominative follow the verb; as, “_To be wise in our own eyes, to be wise in the opinion of the world_, and _to be wise in the sight of our Creator_, are three things so very different, as rarely to coincide.”–_Blair_. “‘_This picture of my friend_,’ and ‘_This picture of my friend’s_,’ suggest very different ideas.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 71; _Murray’s_, i, 178.
“Read of this burgess–on the stone _appear_, How worthy he! how virtuous! and how dear!”–_Crabbe_.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XVI.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–THE VERB AFTER JOINT NOMINATIVES.
“So much ability and merit is seldom found.”–_Murray’s Key_, 12mo, p. 18; _Merchant’s School Gram._, p. 190.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the verb _is_ is in the singular number, and does not correctly agree with its two nominatives, _ability_ and _merit_, which are connected by _and_, and taken conjointly. But, according to Rule 16th, “When a verb has two or more nominatives connected by _and_, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together.” Therefore, _is_ should be _are_; thus, “So much ability and merit _are_ seldom found.” Or: “So much ability and _so much_ merit _are_ seldom found.”]
“The syntax and etymology of the language is thus spread before the learner.”–_Bullions’s English Gram._, 2d Edition, Rec., p. iii. “Dr. Johnson tells us, that in English poetry the accent and the quantity of syllables is the same thing.”–_J. Q. Adams’s Rhet._, ii, 213. “Their general scope and tendency, having never been clearly apprehended, is not remembered at all.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 126. “The soil and sovereignty was not purchased of the natives.”–_Knapp’s Lect. on Amer. Lit._, p. 55. “The boldness, freedom, and variety of our blank verse, is infinitely more favourable than rhyme, to all kinds of sublime poetry.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 40. “The vivacity and sensibility of the Greeks seems to have been much greater than ours.”–_Ib._, p. 253. “For sometimes the Mood and Tense is signified by the Verb, sometimes they are signified of the Verb by something else.'”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 254. “The Verb and the Noun making a complete Sense, which the Participle and the Noun does not.”–_Ib._, p. 255. “The growth and decay of passions and emotions, traced through all their mazes, is a subject too extensive for an undertaking like the present.”–_Kames El. of Crit._, i, 108. “The true meaning and etymology of some of his words was lost.”–_Knight, on the Greek Alph._, p. 37. “When the force and direction of personal satire is no longer understood.”–_Junius_, p. 5. “The frame and condition of man admits of no other principle.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 54. “Some considerable time and care was necessary.”–_Ib._, ii 150. “In consequence of this idea, much ridicule and censure has been thrown upon Milton.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 428. “With rational beings, nature and reason is the same thing.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 111. “And the flax and the barley was smitten.”–_Exod._, ix, 31. “The colon, and semicolon, divides a period, this with, and that without a connective.”–_J. Ware’s Gram._, p. 27. “Consequently wherever space and time is found, there God must also be.”–_Sir Isaac Newton_. “As the past tense and perfect participle of _love_ ends in _ed_, it is regular.”–_Chandler’s Gram._, p. 40; New Edition, p. 66. “But the usual arrangement and nomenclature prevents this from being readily seen.”–_Butler’s Practical Gram._, p. 3. “_Do_ and _did_ simply implies opposition or emphasis.”–_Alex. Murray’s Gram._, p. 41. “_I_ and _another_ make _we_, plural: _Thou_ and _another_ is as much as _ye_: _He, she_, or _it_ and _another_ make _they_”–_Ib._, p. 124. “I and another, is as much as (we) the first Person Plural; Thou and another, is as much as (ye) the second Person Plural; He, she, or it, and another, is as much as (they) the third Person Plural.”–_British Gram._, p. 193; _Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. 76. “God and thou art two, and thou and thy neighbour are two.”–_The Love Conquest_, p. 25. “Just as _an_ and _a_ has arisen out of the numeral _one_.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo. 1850, Sec.200. “The tone and style of each of them, particularly the first and the last, is very different.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 246. “Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten.”–_Deut._, xiii, 22. “Then I may conclude that two and three makes not five.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 354. “Which at sundry times thou and thy brethren hast received from us.”–_Ib._, i, 165. “Two and two is four, and one is five.”–POPE: _Lives of the Poets_, p. 490. “Humility and knowledge with poor apparel, excels pride and ignorance under costly array.”–_Day’s Gram., Parsing Lesson_, p. 100. “A page and a half has been added to the section on composition.”–_Bullions’s E. Gram._, 5th Ed., Pref., p. vii. “Accuracy and expertness in this exercise is an important acquisition.”–_Ib._, p. 71.
“Woods and groves are of thy dressing, Hill and dale doth boast thy blessing.”–_Milton’s Poems_, p. 139.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–THE VERB BEFORE JOINT NOMINATIVES.
“There is a good and a bad, a right and a wrong in taste, as in other things.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 21. “Whence has arisen much stiffness and affectation.”–_Ib._, p. 133. “To this error is owing, in a great measure, that intricacy and harshness, in his figurative language, which I before remarked.”–_Ib._, p. 150; _Jamieson’s Rhet._, 157. “Hence, in his Night Thoughts, there prevails an obscurity and hardness in his style.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 150. “There is, however, in that work much good sense, and excellent criticism.”–_Ib._, p. 401. “There is too much low wit and scurrility in Plautus.”–_Ib._, p. 481. “There is too much reasoning and refinement; too much pomp and studied beauty in them.”–_Ib._, p. 468. “Hence arises the structure and characteristic expression of exclamation.”–_Rush on the Voice_, p. 229. “And such pilots is he and his brethren, according to their own confession.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 314. “Of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus: who concerning the truth have erred.”–_2 Tim._, ii, 17. “Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan.”–_1 Tim._, i, 20. “And so was James and John, the sons of Zebedee.”–_Luke_, v, 10. “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.”–_James_, iii, 10. “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good.”–_Lam._, iii, 38. “In which there is most plainly a right and a wrong.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 215. “In this sentence there is both an actor and an object.”–_Smith’s Inductive Gram._, p. 14. “In the breast-plate was placed the mysterious Urim and Thummim.”–_Milman’s Jews_, i, 88. “What is the gender, number, and person of those in the first?”–_Smith’s Productive Gram._, p. 19. “There seems to be a familiarity and want of dignity in it.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 150. “It has been often asked, what is Latin and Greek?”–_Literary Convention_, p. 209. “For where does beauty and high wit But in your constellation meet?”–_Hudibras_, p. 134. “Thence to the land where flows Ganges and Indus.”–_Paradise Lost_, B. ix, l. 81. “On these foundations seems to rest the midnight riot and dissipation of modern assemblies.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 46. “But what has disease, deformity, and filth, upon which the thoughts can be allured to dwell?”–_Johnson’s Life of Swift_, p. 492. “How is the gender and number of the relative known?”–_Bullions, Practical Lessons_, p. 32.
“High rides the sun, thick rolls the dust, And feebler speeds the blow and thrust.”–_Sir W. Scott_.
UNDER NOTE I.–CHANGE THE CONNECTIVE.
“In every language there prevails a certain structure and analogy of parts, which is understood to give foundation to the most reputable usage.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 90. “There runs through his whole manner, a stiffness and affectation, which renders him very unfit to be considered a general model.”–_Ib._, p. 102. “But where declamation and improvement in speech is the sole aim”–_Ib._, p. 257. “For it is by these chiefly, that the train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the mind, in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 103. “In all writing and discourse, the proper composition and structure of sentnences is of the highest importance.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 101. “Here the wishful look and expectation of the beggar naturally leads to a vivid conception of that which was the object of his thoughts.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 386. “Who say, that the outward naming of Christ, and signing of the cross, puts away devils.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 146. “By which an oath and penalty was to be imposed upon the members.”–_Junius_, p. 6. “Light and knowledge, in what manner soever afforded us, is equally from God.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 264. “For instance, sickness and untimely death is the consequence of intemperance.”–_Ib._, p. 78. “When grief, and blood ill-tempered vexeth him.”–_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 256. “Does continuity and connexion create sympathy and relation in the parts of the body?”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 111. “His greatest concern, and highest enjoyment, was to be approved in the sight of his Creator.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 224. “Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?”–_2 Sam_, iii, 38. “What is vice and wickedness? No rarity, you may depend on it.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 107. “There is also the fear and apprehension of it.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 87. “The apostrophe and _s_, (‘s,) is an abbreviation for _is_, the termination of the old English genitive.”–_Bullions, E. Gram._, p. 17. “_Ti, ce_, and _ci_, when followed by a vowel, usually has the sound of _sh_; as in _partial, special, ocean_.”–_Weld’s Gram._, p. 15.
“Bitter constraint and sad occasion dear Compels me to disturb your season due.”–_Milton’s Lycidas_.
“Debauches and excess, though with less noise, As great a portion of mankind destroys.”–_Waller_, p. 55.
UNDER NOTE II.–AFFIRMATION WITH NEGATION.
“Wisdom, and not wealth, procure esteem.”–_Brown’s Inst._, p. 156. “Prudence, and not pomp, are the basis of his fame.”–_Ib._ “Not fear, but labour have overcome him.”–_Ib._ “The decency, and not the abstinence, make the difference.”–_Ib._ “Not her beauty, but her talents attracts attention.”–_Ib._ “It is her talents, and not her beauty, that attracts attention.”–_Ib._ “It is her beauty, and not her talents that attract attention.”–_Ib._
“His belly, not his brains, this impulse give: He’ll grow immortal; for he cannot live.”–_Young, to Pope_.
UNDER NOTE III.–AS WELL AS, BUT, OR SAVE.
“Common sense as well as piety tell us these are proper.”–_Family Commentary_, p. 64. “For without it the critic, as well as the undertaker, ignorant of any rule, have nothing left but to abandon themselves to chance.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 42. “And accordingly hatred as well as love are extinguished by long absence.”–_Ib._, i, 113. “But at every turn the richest melody as well as the sublimest sentiments are conspicuous.”–_Ib._, ii, 121. “But it, as well as the lines immediately subsequent, defy all translation.”–_Coleridge’s Introduction_, p. 96. “But their religion, as well as their customs, and manners, were strangely misrepresented.”–BOLINGBROKE, ON HISTORY, p. 123; _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 192; _Murray’s Exercises_, p. 47. “But his jealous policy, as well as the fatal antipathy of Fonseca, were conspicuous.”–_Robertson’s America_, i, 191. “When their extent as well as their value were unknown.”–_Ib._, ii, 138. “The Etymology, as well as the Syntax, of the more difficult parts of speech are reserved for his attention [at a later period].”–_Parker and Fox’s E. Gram._, Part i, p. 3. “What I myself owe to him, no one but myself know.”–See _Wright’s Athens_, p. 96. “None, but thou, O mighty prince! canst avert the blow.”–_Inst._, p. 156. “Nothing, but frivolous amusements, please the indolent.”–_Ib._
“Nought, save the gurglings of the rill, were heard.”–_G. B._
“All songsters, save the hooting owl, was mute.”–_G. B._
UNDER NOTE IV.–EACH, EVERY, OR NO.
“Give every word, and every member, their due weight and force.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 110. “And to one of these belong every noun, and every third person of every verb.”–_Wilson’s Essay on Gram._, p. 74. “No law, no restraint, no regulation, are required to keep him in bounds.”–_Literary Convention_, p. 260. “By that time, every window and every door in the street were full of heads.”–_N. Y. Observer_, No. 503. “Every system of religion, and every school of philosophy, stand back from this field, and leave Jesus Christ alone, the solitary example”–_The Corner Stone_, p. 17. “Each day, and each hour, bring their portion of duty.”–_Inst._, p. 156. “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him.”–_1 Sam._, xxii, 2. “Every private Christian and member of the church ought to read and peruse the Scriptures, that they may know their faith and belief founded upon them.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 340. “And every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”–_Rev._, vi, 14.
“No bandit fierce, no tyrant mad with pride, No cavern’d hermit rest self-satisfied.”
UNDER NOTE V.–WITH, OR, &c. FOR AND.
“The side A, with the sides B and C, compose the triangle.”–_Tobitt’s Gram._, p. 48; _Felch’s_, 69; _Ware’s_, 12. “The stream, the rock, or the tree, must each of them stand forth, so as to make a figure in the imagination.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 390. “While this, with euphony, constitute, finally, the whole.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 293. “The bag, with the guineas and dollars in it, were stolen.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 246. “Sobriety, with great industry and talent, enable a man to perform great deeds.”–_Ib._, 245. “The _it_, together with the verb _to be_, express states of being.”–_Ib._, 190. “Where Leonidas the Spartan king, with his chosen band, fighting for their country, were cut off to the last man.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 203. “And Leah also, with her children, came near and bowed themselves.”–_Gen._, xxxiii, 7. “The First or Second will, either of them, by themselves coalesce with the Third, but not with each other.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 74. “The whole must centre in the query, whether Tragedy or Comedy are hurtful and dangerous representations?”–_Formey’s Belles-Lettres_, p. 215. “Grief as well as joy are infectious: the emotions they raise in the spectator resemble them perfectly.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 157. “But in all other words the _Qu_ are both sounded.”–_Ensell’s Gram._, p. 16. “_Qu_ (which are always together) have the sound of _ku_ or _k_, as in _queen, opaque_.”– _Goodenow’s Gram._, p. 45. “In this selection the _ai_ form distinct syllables.”–_Walker’s Key_, p. 290. “And a considerable village, with gardens, fields, &c., extend around on each side of the square.”– _Liberator_, Vol. ix, p. 140. “Affection, or interest, guide our notions and behaviour in the affairs of life; imagination and passion affect the sentiments that we entertain in matters of taste.”–_Jamieson’s Rhet._, p. 171. “She heard none of those intimations of her defects, which envy, petulance, or anger, produce among children.”–_Rambler_, No. 189. “The King, with the Lords and Commons, constitute an excellent form of government.”–_Crombie’s Treatise_, p. 242. “If we say, ‘I am the man, who commands you,’ the relative clause, with the antecedent _man_, form the predicate.”–_Ib._, p. 266.
“The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heav’ns, a shining frame, Their great Original proclaim.”
–ADDISON. _Murray’s Key_, p. 174; _Day’s Gram._, p. 92; _Farnum’s_, 106.
UNDER NOTE VI.–ELLIPTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS.
“There is a reputable and a disreputable practice.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, Vol. i, p. 350. “This and this man was born in her.”–_Milton’s Psalms_, lxxxvii. “This and that man was born in her.”–_Psal._ lxxxvii, 5. “This and that man was born there.”–_Hendrick’s Gram._, p. 94. “Thus _le_ in _l~ego_ and _l~egi_ seem to be sounded equally long.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 253; _Gould’s_, 243. “A distinct and an accurate articulation forms the groundwork of good delivery.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 25. “How is vocal and written language understood?”–_C. W. Sanders, Spelling-Book_, p. 7. “The good, the wise, and the learned man is an ornament to human society.”–_Bartlett’s Reader_. “On some points, the expression of song and speech is identical.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 425. “To every room there was an open and secret passage.”–_Johnson’s Rasselas_, p. 13. “There iz such a thing az tru and false taste, and the latter az often directs fashion, az the former.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 401. “There is such a thing as a prudent and imprudent institution of life, with regard to our health and our affairs”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 210. “The lot of the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah, however different in one respect, have in another corresponded with wonderful exactness.”–_Hope of Israel_, p. 301. “On these final syllables the radical and vanishing movement is performed.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 64. “To be young or old, good, just, or the contrary, are physical or moral events.”–SPURZHEIM: _Felch’s Comp. Gram._, p. 29. “The eloquence of George Whitfield and of John Wesley was of a very different character each from the other.”–_Dr. Sharp_. “The affinity of _m_ for the series _b_, and of _n_ for the series _t_, give occasion for other Euphonic changes.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, Sec.77.
“Pylades’ soul and mad Orestes’, was In these, if we believe Pythagoras”–_Cowley’s Poems_, p. 3.
UNDER NOTE VII.–DISTINCT SUBJECT PHRASES.
“To be moderate in our views, and to proceed temperately in the pursuit of them, is the best way to ensure success.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 206. “To be of any species, and to have a right to the name of that species, is all one.”–_Locke’s Essay_, p. 300. “With whom to will and to do is the same.”–_Jamieson’s Sacred History_, Vol. ii, p. 22. “To profess, and to possess, is very different things.”–_Inst._, p. 156. “To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God, is duties of universal obligation.”–_Ib._ “To be round or square, to be solid or fluid, to be large or small, and to be moved swiftly or slowly, is all equally alien from the nature of thought.”–_Ib._ “The resolving of a sentence into its elements or parts of speech and stating the Accidents which belong to these, is called PARSING.”–_Bullion’s Pract. Lessons_, p. 9. “To spin and to weave, to knit and to sew, was once a girl’s employment; but now to dress and catch a beau, is all she calls enjoyment.”–_Lynn News_, Vol. 8, No. 1.
RULE XVII.–FINITE VERBS.
When a Verb has two or more nominatives connected by _or_ or _nor_, it must agree with them singly, and not as if taken together: as, “Fear _or_ jealousy _affects_ him.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 133. “Nor eye, _nor_ listening ear, an object _finds_: creation sleeps.”–_Young_. “Neither character _nor_ dialogue _was_ yet understood.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 151.
“The wife, where danger _or_ dishonour _lurks_, Safest and seemliest by her husband stays.”–_Milton, P. L._, ix, 267.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVII.
OBS. 1.–To this rule, so far as its application is practicable, there are properly no exceptions; for, _or_ and _nor_ being disjunctive conjunctions, the nominatives are of course to assume the verb separately, and as agreeing with each. Such agreement seems to be positively required by the alternativeness of the expression. Yet the ancient grammarians seldom, if at all, insisted on it. In Latin and Greek, a plural verb is often employed with singular nominatives thus connected; as,
“Tunc nec mens mini, nec color
Certa sede _manent_.”–HORACE. See _W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 133.
[Greek: “Ean de adelphos ae adelphae lumnoi huparchosi, kai leipomenoi osi taes ephaemerou trophaes.”]–_James_, ii. 15. And the best scholars have sometimes _improperly_ imitated this construction in English; as, “Neither Virgil nor Homer _were_ deficient in any of the former beauties.”–DRYDEN’S PREFACE: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. iii, p. 168. “Neither Saxon nor Roman _have availed_ to add any idea to his [Plato’s] categories.”–R. W. EMERSON: _Liberator_, No. 996.
“He comes–nor want _nor_ cold his course _delay_: Hide, blushing Glory! hide Pultowa’s day.”–_Dr. Johnson_.
“No monstrous height, _or_ breadth, _or_ length, _appear_; The whole at once is bold and regular.”–_Pope, on Crit._, l. 250.
OBS. 2.–When two collective nouns of the singular form are connected by _or_ or _nor_, the verb may agree with them in the plural number, because such agreement is adapted to each of them, according to Rule 15th; as, “Why _mankind_, or such a _part_ of mankind, are placed in this condition.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 213. “But neither the _Board_ of Control nor the _Court_ of Directors _have_ any scruples about sanctioning the abuses of which I have spoken.”–_Glory and Shame of England_, Vol. ii, p. 70.
OBS. 3.–When a verb has nominatives of different persons or numbers, connected by _or_ or _nor_, an explicit concord with each is impossible; because the verb cannot be of different persons or numbers at the same time; nor is it so, even when its form is made the same in all the persons and numbers: thus, “I, thou, [or] he, _may affirm_; we, ye, or they, _may affirm_.”–_Beattie’s Moral Science_, p. 36. Respecting the proper management of the verb when its nominatives thus disagree, the views of our grammarians are not exactly coincident. Few however are ignorant enough, or rash enough, to deny that there may be an implicit or implied concord in such cases,–a _zeugma_ of the verb in English, as well as of the verb or of the adjective in Latin or Greek. Of this, the following is a brief example: “But _he nor I feel_ more.”–_Dr. Young_, Night iii, p. 35. And I shall by-and-by add others–enough, I hope, to confute those false critics who condemn all such phraseology.
OBS. 4.–W. Allen’s rule is this: “If the nominatives are of different numbers or persons, the verb agrees with _the last_; as, he _or_ his _brothers were_ there; neither _you nor I am_ concerned.”–_English Gram._, p. 133. Lindley Murray, and others, say: (1.) “When singular pronouns, or a noun and pronoun, of different _persons_, are disjunctively connected, the verb must agree with that person which is placed _nearest to it_: as, ‘I or thou _art_ to blame;’ ‘Thou or I _am_ in fault;’ ‘I, or thou, or he, _is_ the author of it;’ ‘George or I _am_ the person.’ But it would be better to say; ‘Either I am to blame, or thou art,’ &c. (2.) When a disjunctive occurs between a singular noun, _or_ pronoun, and a plural one, the verb is made to agree with the _plural_ noun _and_ pronoun: as, ‘Neither poverty nor riches _were_ injurious to him;’ ‘I or they _were_ offended by it.’ But in this case, the plural noun _or_ pronoun, when _it_ can conveniently be _done_, should be placed next to the verb.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 151; _Smith’s New Gram._, 128; _Alger’s Gram._, 54; _Comly’s_, 78 and 79; _Merchant’s_, 86; _Picket’s_, 175; and many more. There are other grammarians who teach, that the verb must agree with the nominative which is placed next to it, whether this be singular or plural; as, “Neither the servants nor the master _is_ respected;”–“Neither the master nor the servants _are_ respected.”–_Alexander Murray’s Gram._, p. 65. “But if neither the writings nor the author _is_ in existence, the Imperfect should be used.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 107.
OBS. 5.–On this point, a new author has just given us the following precept and criticism: “Never connect by _or_, or _nor_, two or more names or substitutes that have the same _asserter_ [i.e. _verb_] depending on them for sense, if when taken separately, they require different forms of the _asserters_. Examples. ‘Neither you nor I _am concerned_. Either he _or_ thou _wast_ there. Either they _or_ he is faulty.’ These examples are as erroneous as it would be to say, ‘Neither _you am_ concerned, nor am I.’ ‘Either he _wast_ there, or thou wast.’ ‘Either _they is_ faulty, or he is.’ The sentences should stand thus–‘Neither of us _is_ concerned,’ or, ‘neither _are you_ concerned, nor _am I_.’ ‘Either _he was_ there, or _thou wast_.’ ‘Either _they are_ faulty, or _he is_. They are, however, in all their impropriety, writen [sic–KTH] according to the principles of Goold Brown’s _grammar!_ and the theories of most of the former writers.”–_Oliver B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 252. We shall see by-and-by who is right.
OBS. 6.–Cobbett also–while he approves of such English as, “_He, with them, are_ able to do much,” for, “_He and they are_ able to do much”–condemns expressly every possible example in which the verb has not a full and explicit concord with each of its nominatives, if they are connected by _or_ or _nor_. His doctrine is this: “If nominatives of different _numbers_ present themselves, we must not give them a verb which _disagrees_ with either the one or the other. We must not say: ‘Neither the halter _nor_ the bayonets _are_ sufficient to prevent us from obtaining our rights.’ We must avoid this bad grammar by using a different form of words: as, ‘We are to be prevented from obtaining our rights by neither the halter nor the bayonets.’ And, why should we _wish_ to write bad grammar, if we can express our meaning in good grammar?”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 242. This question would have more force, if the correction here offered did not convey a meaning _widely different_ from that of the sentence corrected. But he goes on: “We cannot say, ‘They or I _am_ in fault; I, or they, or he, _is_ the author of it; George or I _am_ the person.’ Mr. Lindley Murray says, that we _may_ use these phrases; and that we have only to take care that the verb agree with that person which is _placed nearest_ to it; but, he says also, that it would be _better_ to avoid such phrases by giving a different turn to our words. I do not like to leave any thing to chance or to discretion, when we have a _clear principle_ for our guide.”–_Ib._, 243. This author’s “clear principle” is merely his own confident assumption, that every form of figurative or implied agreement, every thing which the old grammarians denominated _zeugma_, is at once to be condemned as a solecism. He is however supported by an other late writer of much greater merit. See _Churchill’s New Gram._, pp. 142 and 312.
OBS. 7.–If, in lieu of their fictitious examples, our grammarians would give us actual quotations from reputable authors, their instructions would doubtless gain something in accuracy, and still more in authority. “_I or they were offended by it_,” and, “_I, or thou, or he, is the author of it_,” are expressions that I shall not defend. They imply an _egotistical_ speaker, who either does not know, or will not tell, whether he is _offended_ or not,–whether he _is the author_ or not! Again, there are expressions that are unobjectionable, and yet not conformable to any of the rules just quoted. That nominatives may be correctly connected by _or_ or _nor_ without an express agreement of the verb with each of them, is a point which can be proved to as full certainty as almost any other in grammar; Churchill, Cobbett, and Peirce to the contrary notwithstanding. But with which of the nominatives the verb shall expressly agree, or to which of them it may most properly be understood, is a matter not easy to be settled by any _sure_ general rule. Nor is the lack of such a rule a very important defect, though the inculcation of a false or imperfect one may be. So judged at least the ancient grammarians, who noticed and named almost every possible form of the zeugma, without censuring any as being ungrammatical. In the Institutes of English Grammar, I noted first the usual form of this concord, and then the allowable exceptions; but a few late writers, we see, denounce every form of it, exceptions and all: and, standing alone in their notions of the figure, value their own authority more than that of all other critics together.
OBS. 8.–In English, as in other languages, when a verb has discordant nominatives connected disjunctively, it most commonly agrees expressly with that which is nearest, and only by implication, with the more remote; as, “When some word or words _are_ dependent on the attribute.”–_Webster’s Philos. Gram._, p. 153. “To the first of these qualities, dulness or refinements _are_ dangerous enemies.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 15. “He hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or both _are_ very _honorably_ murdered.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 235. “The consequence is, that they frown upon everyone whose faults or negligence _interrupts_ or _retards_ their lessons.”–_W. C. Woodbridge: Lit. Conv._, p. 114. “Good intentions, or at least sincerity of purpose, _was_ never denied her.”–_West’s Letters_, p. 43. “Yet this proves not that either he or we _judge_ them to be the rule.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 157. “First clear yourselves of popery before you or thou _dost throw_ it upon us.”–_Ib._, i, 169. “_Is_ the gospel or glad tidings of this salvation brought nigh unto all?”–_Ib._, i, 362. “Being persuaded, that either they, or their cause, _is_ naught.”–_Ib._, i, 504. “And the reader may judge whether he or I _do_ most fully acknowledge man’s fall.”–_Ib._, iii, 332. “To do justice to the Ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one, or any two, of the three Estates, _have_ power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third.”–_Junius_, Letter xvii. “The forest, or hunting-grounds, _are_ deemed the property of the tribe.”–_Robertson’s America_, i, 313. “Birth or titles _confer_ no preeminence.”–_Ib._, ii, 184. “Neither tobacco nor hides _were_ imported from Caraccas into Spain.”–_Ib._, ii, 507. “The keys or seed-vessel of the maple _has_ two large side-wings.”–_The Friend_, vii, 97. “An example or two _are_ sufficient to illustrate the general observation.”–_Dr. Murray’s Hist. of Lang._, i, 58.
“Not thou, nor those thy factious arts engage, _Shall_ reap that harvest of rebellious rage.”–_Dryden_, p. 60.
OBS. 9.–But when the remoter nominative is the principal word, and the nearer one is expressed parenthetically, the verb agrees literally with the former, and only by implication, with the latter; as, “One example, (or ten,) _says_ nothing against it.”–_Leigh Hunt_. “And we, (or future ages,) _may_ possibly _have_ a proof of it.”–_Bp. Butler_. So, when the alternative is merely in the _words_, not in the _thought_, the former term is sometimes considered the principal one, and is therefore allowed to control the verb; but there is always a harshness in this mixture of different numbers, and, to render such a construction tolerable, it is necessary to read the latter term like a parenthesis, and make the former emphatic: as, “A _parenthesis_, or brackets, _consists_ of two angular strokes, or hooks, enclosing one or more words.”–_Whiting’s Reader_, p. 28. “To show us that our own _schemes_, or prudence, _have_ no share in our advancements.”–_Addison_. “The Mexican _figures_, or picture-writing, _represent_ things, not words; _they_ exhibit images to the eye, not ideas to the understanding.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 243; _English Reader_, p. xiii. “At Travancore, _Koprah_, or dried cocoa-nut kernels, _is_ monopolized by government.”–_Maunder’s Gram._, p. 12. “The _Scriptures_, or Bible, _are_ the only authentic source.”–_Bp. Tomline’s Evidences_.
“Nor foes nor fortune _take_ this power away; And is my Abelard less kind than _they_?”–_Pope_, p. 334.
OBS. 10.–The English adjective being indeclinable, we have no examples of some of the forms of zeugma which occur in Latin and Greek. But adjectives differing in _number_, are sometimes connected without a repetition of the noun; and, in the agreement of the verb, the noun which is understood, is less apt to be regarded than that which is expressed, though the latter be more remote; as, “There _are one or two_ small _irregularities_ to be noted.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 63. “There _are one or two persons_, and but one or two.”–_Hazlitt’s Lectures_. “There _are one or two_ others.”–_Crombie’s Treatise_, p. 206. “There _are one or two_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 319. “There _are one or more_ seminaries in every province.”–_H. E. Dwight: Lit. Conv._, p. 133. “Whether _one or more_ of the clauses _are_ to be considered the nominative case.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. i, p. 150. “So that, I believe, there _is_ not _more_ than _one_ genuine example extant.”–_Knight, on the Greek Alphabet_, p. 10. “There _is_, properly, no _more_ than _one_ pause or rest in the sentence.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. i, p. 329; _Blair’s Rhet._, p. 125. “Sometimes a small _letter or two is_ added to the capital.”–_Adam’s Lat. Gram._, p. 223; _Gould’s_, 283. Among the examples in the seventh paragraph above, there is one like this last, but with a plural verb; and if either is objectionable, _is_ should here be _are_. The preceding example, too, is such as I would not imitate. To L. Murray, the following sentence seemed false syntax, because _one_ does not agree with _persons_: “He saw _one or more persons_ enter the garden.”–_Murray’s Exercises_, Rule 8th, p. 54. In his Key, he has it thus: “He saw one _person_, or _more than one_, enter the garden.”–_Oct. Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 189. To me, this stiff _correction_, which many later grammarians have copied, seems worse than none. And the effect of the principle may be noticed in Murray’s style elsewhere; as, “When a _semicolon, or more than one_, have preceded.”–_Octavo Gram._, i, p. 277; _Ingersoll’s Gram._, p. 288. Here a ready writer would be very apt to prefer one of the following phrases: “When a semicolon _or two_ have preceded,”–“When _one or two semicolons_ have preceded,”–“When _one or more semicolons_ have preceded.” It is better to write by guess, than to become systematically awkward in expression.
OBS. 11.–In Greek and Latin, the pronoun of the first person, according to our critics, is _generally_[398] placed first; as, “[Greek: Ego kai su ta dikaia poiaesomen]. Xen.”–_Milnes’s Gr. Gram._, p. 120. That is, “_Ego et tu justa faciemus_.” Again: “_Ego et Cicero valemus_. Cic.”–_Buchanan’s Pref._, p. x; _Adam’s Gram._, 206; _Gould’s_, 203. “I and Cicero are well.”–_Ib._ But, in English, a modest speaker usually gives to others the precedence, and mentions himself last; as, “He, or thou, or I, must go.”–“Thou and I will do what is right.”–“Cicero and I are well.”–_Dr. Adam_.[399] Yet, in speaking of himself and his _dependants_, a person most commonly takes rank before them; as, “Your inestimable letters supported _myself, my wife_, and _children_, in adversity.”–_Lucien Bonaparte, Charlemagne_, p. v. “And I shall be destroyed, _I_ and _my house_.”–_Gen._, xxxiv, 30. And in acknowledging a fault, misfortune, or censure, any speaker may assume the first place; as, “Both _I and thou_ are in the fault.”–_Adam’s Gram._, p. 207. “Both _I and you_ are in fault.”–_Buchanan’s Syntax_, p. ix. “Trusty did not do it; _I and Robert_ did it.”–_Edgeworth’s Stories_.
“With critic scales, weighs out the partial wit, What _I_, or _you_, or _he_, or _no one_ writ.” –_Lloyd’s Poems_, p. 162.
OBS. 12.–According to the theory of this work, verbs themselves are not unfrequently connected, one to an other, by _and, or_, or _nor_; so that two or more of them, being properly in the same construction, may be parsed as agreeing with the same nominative: as, “So that the blind and dumb [_man_] both _spake_ and _saw_.”–_Matt._, xii, 22. “That no one _might buy_ or _sell_.”–_Rev._, xiii, 17. “Which _see_ not, nor _hear_, nor _know_.”–_Dan._, v, 23. We have certainly very many examples like these, in which it is neither convenient nor necessary to suppose an ellipsis of the nominative before the latter verb, or before all but the first, as most of our grammarians do, whenever they find two or more finite verbs connected in this manner. It is true, the nominative may, in most instances, be repeated without injury to the sense; but this fact is no proof of such an ellipsis; because many a sentence which is not incomplete, may possibly take additional words without change of meaning. But these authors, (as I have already suggested under the head of conjunctions,) have not been very careful of their own consistency. If they teach, that, “Every finite verb has its own separate nominative, either expressed or implied,” which idea Murray and others seem to have gathered from Lowth; or if they say, that, “Conjunctions really unite sentences, when they appear to unite only words,” which notion they may have acquired from Harris; what room is there for that common assertion, that, “Conjunctions connect the same moods and tenses of verbs,” which is a part of Murray’s eighteenth rule, and found in most of our grammars? For no agreement is usually required between verbs that have separate nominatives; and if we supply a nominative wherever we do not find one for each verb, then in fact no two verbs will ever be connected by any conjunction.
OBS. 13.–What agreement there must be, between verbs that are in the same construction, it is not easy to determine with certainty. Some of the Latin grammarians tell us, that certain conjunctions connect “sometimes similar moods and tenses, and sometimes similar moods but different tenses.” See _Prat’s Grammatica Latina, Octavo_, Part ii, p. 95. Ruddiman, Adam, and Grant, omit the concord of tenses, and enumerate certain conjunctions which “couple like cases and moods.” But all of them acknowledge some exceptions to their rules. The instructions of Lindley Murray and others, on this point, may be summed up in the following canon: “When verbs are connected by a conjunction, they must either agree in mood, tense, and form, or have separate nominatives expressed.” This rule, (with a considerable exception to it, which other authors had not noticed.) was adopted by myself in the Institutes of English Grammar, and also retained in the Brief Abstract of that work, entitled, The First Lines of English Grammar. It there stands as the thirteenth in the series of principal rules; but, as there is no occasion to refer to it in the exercise of parsing, I now think, a less prominent place may suit it as well or better. The principle may be considered as being less certain and less important than most of the usual rules of syntax: I shall therefore both modify the expression of it, and place it among the notes of the present code. See Notes 5th and 6th below.
OBS. 14.–By the agreement of verbs with each other in _form_, it is meant, that the simple form and the compound, the familiar form and the solemn, the affirmative form and the negative, or the active form and the passive, are not to be connected without a repetition of the nominative. With respect to _our_ language, this part of the rule is doubtless as important, and as true, as any other. A thorough agreement, then, in mood, tense, and form, is _generally_ required, when verbs are connected by _and, or_, or _nor_; and, under each part of this concord, there may be cited certain errors which ought to be avoided, as will by-and-by be shown. But, at the same time, there seem to be many allowable violations of the rule, some or other of which may perhaps form exceptions to every part of it. For example, the _tense_ may be varied, as it often is in Latin; thus, “As the general state of religion _has been, is_, or _shall be_, affected by them.”–_Butlers Analogy_, p. 241. “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which _art_, and _wast_, and _shall be_, because thou hast judged thus.”–_Rev._, xvi, 5. In the former of these examples, a repetition of the nominative would not be agreeable; in the latter, it would perhaps be an improvement: as, “_who_ art, and _who_ wast, and _who_ shalt be.” (I here change the pronoun, because the relative _which_ is not now applied as above.) “This dedication may serve for almost any book, that _has been_, or _shall be_ published.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._ p. 207; _Murray’s Gram._, p. 222. “It ought to be, ‘_has been, is_, or _shall be_, published.'”–_Crombie’s Treatise_, p. 383. “Truth and good sense _are_ firm, and _will establish_ themselves.”–_Blair’s Rhet._ p. 286. “Whereas Milton _followed_ a different plan, and _has given_ a tragic conclusion to a poem otherwise epic in its form.”–_Ib._, p. 428. “I am certain, that such _are not_, nor ever _were_, the tenets of the church of England.”–_West’s Letters_, p. 148. “They _deserve_, and _will meet with_, no regard.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 109.
“Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see, Thinks what ne’er _was_, nor _is_, nor e’er _shall be_.” –_Pope, on Crit._
OBS. 15.–So verbs differing in _mood_ or _form_ may sometimes agree with the same nominative, if the simplest verb be placed first–rarely, I think, if the words stand in any other order: as, “One _may be_ free from affectation and _not have_ merit”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 189. “There _is_, and _can be_, no other person.”–_Murray’s Key_. 8vo. p. 224. “To see what _is_, and _is allowed_ to be, the plain natural rule.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 284. “This great experiment _has worked_, and _is working_, well, every way well”–BRADBURN: _Liberator_, ix. 162. “This edition of Mr. Murray’s works on English Grammar, _deserves_ a place in Libraries, and _will not fail_ to obtain it.”–BRITISH CRITIC: _Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, ii, 299.
“What nothing earthly _gives_, or _can destroy_.”–_Pope_.
“Some _are_, and _must be_, greater than the rest.”–_Id._
OBS. 16.–Since most of the tenses of an English verb are composed of two or more words, to prevent a needless or disagreeable repetition of auxiliaries, participles, and principal verbs, those parts which are common to two or more verbs in the same sentence, are generally expressed to the first, and understood to the rest; or reserved, and put last, as the common supplement of each; as, “To which they _do_ or _can extend_.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 77. “He _may_, as any one _may_, if he _will, incur_ an infamous execution from the hands of civil justice.”–_Ib._, p. 82. “All that has usurped the name of virtue, and [_has_] deceived us by its semblance, must be a mockery and a delusion.”–_Dr. Chalmers_. “Human praise, and human eloquence, may acknowledge it, but the Discerner of the heart never will” [_acknowledge it_].–_Id._ “We use thee not so hardly, as prouder livers do” [_use thee_].–_Shak._ “Which they might have foreseen and [_might have_] avoided.”–_Butler_. “Every sincere endeavour to amend, shall be assisted, [_shall be_] accepted, and [_shall be_] rewarded.”–_Carter_. “Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and [_will_] stand and [_will_] call on the name of the Lord his God, and [_will_] strike his hand over the place, and [_will_] recover the leper.”–_2 Kings_, v, 11. “They mean to, and will, hear patiently.”–_Salem Register_. That is, “They mean to _hear patiently_, and _they_ will hear patiently.” “He can create, and he destroy.”–_Bible_. That is,–“and he _can_ destroy.”
“Virtue _may be assail’d_, but never _hurt_, _Surpris’d_ by unjust force, but not _inthrall’d_.”–_Milton_.
“Mortals whose pleasures are their only care, First wish to be _imposed on_, and then _are_.”–_Cowper_.
OBS. 17.–From the foregoing examples, it may be seen, that the complex and divisible structure of the English moods and tenses, produces, when verbs are connected together, a striking peculiarity of construction in our language, as compared with the nearest corresponding construction in Latin or Greek. For we can connect different auxiliaries, participles, or principal verbs, without repeating, and apparently without connecting, the other parts of the mood or tense. And although it is commonly supposed that these parts are necessarily understood wherever they are not repeated, there are sentences, and those not a few, in which we cannot express them, without inserting also an additional nominative, and producing distinct clauses; as, “_Should_ it not _be taken_ up and _pursued_?”–_Dr. Chalmers_. “Where thieves _do_ not _break_ through nor _steal_.”–_Matt._, vi, 20. “None present _could_ either _read_ or _explain_ the writing-.”–_Wood’s Dict._, Vol. i, p. 159. Thus we sometimes make a single auxiliary an index to the mood and tense of more than one verb.
OBS. 18.–The verb _do_, which is sometimes an auxiliary and sometimes a principal verb, is thought by some grammarians to be also fitly made a _substitute_ for other verbs, as a pronoun is for nouns; but this doctrine has not been taught with accuracy, and the practice under it will in many instances be found to involve a solecism. In this kind of substitution, there must either be a true ellipsis of the principal verb, so that _do_ is only an auxiliary; or else the verb _do_, with its _object_ or _adverb_, if it need one, must exactly correspond to an action described before; so that to speak of _doing this_ or _thus_, is merely the shortest way of repeating the idea: as, “He _loves_ not plays, as thou _dost_. Antony.”–_Shak._ That is, “as thou _dost love plays._” “This fellow is wise enough _to play the fool_; and, _to do that_ well, craves a kind of wit.”–_Id._ Here, “_to do that_,” is, “_to play the fool_.” “I will not _do it_, if I find thirty there.”–_Gen._, xviii, 30. Do what? Destroy the city, as had been threatened. Where _do_ is an auxiliary, there is no real substitution; and, in the other instances, it is not properly the verb _do_, that is the substitute, but rather the word that follows it–or perhaps, both. For, since every action consists in _doing something_ or in _doing somehow_, this general verb _do_, with _this, that, it, thus_, or _so_, to identify the action, may assume the import of many a longer phrase. But care must be taken not to substitute this verb for any term to which it is not equivalent; as, “The _a_ is certainly to be sounded as the English _do_.”–_Walker’s Dict., w. A_. Say, “as the English _sound it_;” for _do_ is here absurd, and grossly solecistical. “The duke had not behaved with that loyalty with which he ought to have _done_.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 111; _Murray’s_, i, 212; _Churchill’s_, 355; _Fisk’s_, 137; _Ingersoll’s_, 269. Say, “with which he ought to have _behaved_;” for, to have _done_ with loyalty is not what was meant–far from it. Clarendon wrote the text thus: “The Duke had not behaved with that loyalty, _as_ he ought to have done.” This should have been corrected, not by changing _”as”_ to _”with which”_, but by saying–“with that loyalty _which_ he ought to have _observed;”_ or, “_which would have become him”_.
OBS. 19.–It is little to the credit of our grammarians, to find so many of them thus concurring in the same obvious error, and even making bad English worse. The very examples which have hitherto been given to prove that _do_ may be a substitute for other verbs, are _none of them in point_, and all of them have been constantly and shamefully _misinterpreted._ Thus: “They [_do_ and _did_] sometimes also supply the place of _another verb_, and make the repetition of it, in the same or a subsequent sentence, unnecessary: as, ‘You attend not to your studies as he _does_;’ (i. e. as he _attends_, &c.) ‘I shall come if I can; but if I _do not_, please to excuse me;’ (i. e. if I _come_ not.)”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, Vol. i, p. 88; _R. C. Smith’s_, 88; _Ingersoll’s_, 135; _Fisk’s_, 78; _A. Flint’s_, 41; _Hiley’s_, 30. This remark, but not the examples, was taken from _Lowths Gram._, p. 41. Churchill varies it thus, and retains Lowth’s example: “It [i. e., _do_] is used also, to supply the _place of another verb_, in order to avoid the repetition of it: as, ‘He _loves_ not plays, As thou _dost_, Antony.’ SHAKS.”–_New Gram._, p. 96. Greenleaf says, “To prevent the repetition of _one or more verbs_, in the same, or [a] following sentence, we frequently make use of _do_ AND _did_; as, ‘Jack learns the English language as fast as Henry _does_;’ that is, ‘as fast as Henry _learns_.’ ‘I shall come if I can; but if I _do_ not, please to excuse me;’ that is, ‘if I _come_ not.'”–_Gram. Simplified_, p. 27. Sanborn says, “_Do_ is also used _instead of another verb_, and not unfrequently instead of both _the verb and its object_; as, ‘he _loves work_ as well as you _do_;’ that is, as well as you _love work_.”–_Analyt. Gram._, p. 112. Now all these interpretations are wrong; the word _do, dost_, or _does_, being simply an auxiliary, after which the principal verb (with its object where it has one) is _understood_. But the first example is _bad English_, and its explanation is still worse. For, “_As he attends_, &c.,” means, “As _he_ attends _to your studies!_” And what good sense is there in this? The sentence ought to have been, “You do not attend to your studies, as he does _to his_.” That is–“as he does _attend_ to his _studies_.” This plainly shows that there is, in the text, no real substitution of _does_ for _attends_. So of all other examples exhibited in our grammars, under this head: there is nothing to the purpose, in any of them; the common principle of _ellipsis_ resolves them all. Yet, strange to say, in the latest and most learned of this sort of text-books, we find the same sham example, fictitious and solecistical as it is, still blindly repeated, to show that “_does_” is not in its own place, as an auxiliary, but “supplies the place of another verb.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo. 1850. p. 265.
NOTES TO RULE XVII.
NOTE I.–When a verb has nominatives of different persons or numbers,[400] connected by _or_ or _nor_, it must agree with the nearest, (unless an other be the principal term,) and must be understood to the rest, in the person and number required; as, “Neither you nor I _am_ concerned.”–_W. Allen_. “That neither they nor ye also _die_.”–_Numb._, xviii, 3.
“But neither god, nor shrine, nor mystic rite, Their city, nor her walls, his soul _delight_.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. x, l. 26.
NOTE II.–But, since all nominatives that require different forms of the verb, virtually produce separate clauses or propositions, it is better to complete the concord whenever we conveniently can, by expressing the verb or its auxiliary in connexion with each of them; as, “Either thou _art_ to blame, or I _am_.”–_Comly’s Gram._, p. 78. “Neither _were_ their numbers, nor _was_ their destination, known.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 134. So in clauses connected by _and_: as, “But declamation _is_ idle, and _murmurs_ fruitless.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 82. Say,–“and murmurs _are_ fruitless.”
NOTE III.–In English, the speaker should always mention himself last; unless his own superior dignity, or the confessional nature of the expression, warrant him in taking the precedence: as, “_Thou or I_ must go.”–“He then addressed his discourse to _my father and me_.”–“_Ellen and I_ will seek, apart, the refuge of some forest cell.”–_Scott_. See Obs. 11th above.
NOTE IV.–Two or more distinct subject phrases connected by _or_ or _nor_, require a singular verb; and, if a nominative come after the verb, that must be singular also: as, “That a drunkard should be poor, _or_ that a fop should be ignorant, _is_ not strange.”–“To give an affront, or to take one tamely, _is_ no _mark_ of a great mind.” So, when the phrases are unconnected: as, “To spread suspicion, to invent calumnies, to propagate scandal, _requires_ neither labour nor courage.”–_Rambler_, No. 183.
NOTE V.–In general, when _verbs_ are connected by _and, or_, or _nor_, they must either agree in mood, tense, and form, or the simplest in form must be placed first; as, “So Sennacherib king of Assyria _departed_, and _went_ and _returned_, and _dwelt_ at Nineveh.”–_Isaiah_, xxxvii, 37. “For if I _be_ an offender, or _have committed_ any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die.”–_Acts_, xxv, 11.
NOTE VI.–In stead of conjoining discordant verbs, it is in general better to repeat the nominative or insert a new one; as, “He was greatly heated, and [_he] drank_ with avidity.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 201. “A person may be great or rich by chance; but _cannot be_ wise or good, without taking pains for it.”–_Ib._, p. 200. Say,–“but _no one can be_ wise or good, without taking pains for it.”
NOTE VII.–A mixture of the forms of the solemn style and the familiar, is inelegant, whether the verbs refer to the same nominative or have different ones expressed; as, “What _appears_ tottering and in hazard of tumbling, _produceth_ in the spectator the painful emotion of fear.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 356. “And the milkmaid _singeth_ blithe, And the mower _whets_ his sithe.”–_Milton’s Allegro_, l. 65 and 66.
NOTE VIII.–To use different moods under precisely the same circumstances, is improper, even if the verbs have separate nominatives; as, “Bating that one _speak_ and an other _answers_, it is quite the same.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 368. Say,–“that one _speaks_;” for both the speaking and the answering are assumed as facts.
NOTE IX.–When two terms are connected, which involve different forms of the same verb, such parts of the compound tenses as are not common to both forms, should be inserted in full: except sometimes after the auxiliary _do_; as, “And then he _falls_, as I _do_.”–_Shak_. That is, “as I _do fall_.” The following sentences are therefore faulty: “I think myself highly obliged _to make_ his fortune, as he _has_ mine.”–_Spect._, No. 474. Say,–“as he _has made_ mine.” “Every attempt to remove them, _has_, and likely _will prove_ unsuccessful.”–_Gay’s Prosodical Gram._, p. 4. Say,–“_has proved_, and likely _will prove_, unsuccessful.”
NOTE X.–The verb _do_ must never be substituted for any term to which its own meaning is not adapted; nor is there any use in putting it for a preceding verb that is equally short: as, “When we see how confidently men rest on groundless surmises in reference to their own souls, we cannot wonder that they _do it_ in reference to others.”–_Simeon_. Better:–“that they _so rest_ in reference to _the souls of_ others;” for this repeats the idea with more exactness. NOTE XI.–The preterit should not be employed to form the compound tenses of the verb; nor should the perfect participle be used for the preterit or confounded with the present. Thus: say, “To have _gone_,” not, “To have _went_;” and, “I _did_ so,” not, “I _done_ so;” or, “He _saw_ them,” not, “He _seen_ them.” Again: say not, “It was _lift_ or _hoist_ up;” but, “It was _lifted_ or _hoisted_ up.”
NOTE XII.–Care should be taken, to give every verb or participle its appropriate form, and not to confound those which resemble each other; as, _to flee_ and _to fly, to lay_ and _to lie, to sit_ and _to set, to fall_ and _to fell_, &c. Thus: say, “He _lay_ by the fire;” not, “He _laid_ by the fire;”–“He _has become_ rich;” not, “He _is become_ rich;”–“I _would_ rather _stay_;” not, “I _had_ rather _stay_.”
NOTE XIII.–In the syntax of words that express time, whether they be verbs, adverbs, or nouns, the order and fitness of time should be observed, that the tenses may be used according to their import. Thus: in stead of, “I _have seen_ him _last week_;” say, “I _saw_ him _last week_;”–and, in stead of, “I _saw_ him _this week_;” say, “I _have seen_ him _this week_.” So, in stead of, “I _told_ you _already_;” or, “I _have told_ you _before_;” say, “I _have told_ you _already_;”–“I _told_ you _before_.”
NOTE XIV.–Verbs of commanding, desiring, expecting, hoping, intending, permitting, and some others, in all their tenses, refer to actions or events, relatively present or future: one should therefore say, “I hoped you _would come_;” not, “I hoped you _would have come_;”–and, “I intended _to do_ it;” not, “I intended _to have done_ it;”–&c.
NOTE XV.–Propositions that are as true now as they ever were or will be, should generally be expressed in the present tense: as, “He seemed hardly to know, that two and two _make_ four;” not, “_made_.”–_Blair’s Gram._, p. 65. “He will tell you, that whatever _is, is_ right.” Sometimes the present tense is improper with the conjunction _that_, though it would be quite proper without it; as, “Others said, _That_ it _is_ Elias. And others said, _That_ it _is_ a prophet.”–_Mark_, vi, 15. Here _That_ should be omitted, or else _is_ should be _was_. The capital _T_ is also improper.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XVII.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–NOMINATIVES CONNECTED BY OR.
“We do not know in what either reason or instinct consist.”–_Rambler_, No. 41.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the verb _consist_ is of the plural number, and does not correctly agree with its two nominatives, _reason_ and _instinct_, which are connected by _or_, and taken disjunctively. But, according to Rule 17th, “When a verb has two or more nominatives connected by _or_ or _nor_, it must agree with them singly, and not as if taken together.” Therefore, _consist_ should be _consists_; thus, “We do not know in what either reason or instinct _consists_.”]
“A noun or a pronoun joined with a participle, constitute a nominative case absolute.”–_Bicknell’s Gram._, Part ii, p. 50. “The relative will be of that case, which the verb or noun following, or the preposition going before, use to govern.”–_Dr. Adam’s Gram._, p. 203. “Which the verb or noun following, or the preposition going before, usually govern.”–_Gould’s Adam’s Gram._, p. 200.[401] “In the different modes of pronunciation which habit or caprice give rise to.”–_Knight, on the Greek Alphabet_, p. 14. “By which he, or his deputy, were authorized to cut down any trees in Whittlebury forest.”–_Junius_, p. 251. “Wherever objects were to be named, in which sound, noise, or motion were concerned, the imitation by words was abundantly obvious.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 55. “The pleasure or pain resulting from a train of perceptions in different circumstances, are a beautiful contrivance of nature for valuable purposes.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 262. “Because their foolish vanity or their criminal ambition represent the principles by which they are influenced, as absolutely perfect.”–_Life of Madame De Stael_, p. 2. “Hence naturally arise indifference or aversion between the parties.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 37. “A penitent unbeliever, or an impenitent believer, are characters no where to be found.”–_Tract_, No. 183. “Copying whatever is peculiar in the talk of all those whose birth or fortune entitle them to imitation.”–_Rambler_, No. 194. “Where love, hatred, fear, or contempt, are often of decisive influence.”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 119. “A lucky anecdote, or an enlivening tale relieve the folio page.”–_D’Israeli’s Curiosities_, Vol. i, p. 15. “For outward matter or event, fashion not the character within.”–_Book of Thoughts_, p. 37. “Yet sometimes we have seen that wine, or chance, have warmed cold brains.”–_Dryden’s Poems_, p. 76. “Motion is a Genus; Flight, a Species; this Flight or that Flight are Individuals.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 38. “When _et, aut, vel, sine_, or _nec_, are joined to different members of the same sentence.”–_Adam’s Lat. and Eng. Gram._, p. 206; _Gould’s Lat. Gram._, 203; _Grant’s_, 266. “Wisdom or folly govern us.”–_Fisk’s English Gram._, 84. “_A_ or _an_ are styled indefinite articles.”–_Folker’s Gram._, p. 4. “A rusty nail, or a crooked pin, shoot up into prodigies.”–_Spectator_, No. 7. “Are either the subject or the predicate in the second sentence modified?”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, p. 578, Sec.589.
“Praise from a friend, or censure from a foe, Are lost on hearers that our merits know.” –_Pope, Iliad_, B. x, l. 293.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.–NOMINATIVES CONNECTED BY NOR.
“Neither he nor she have spoken to him.”–_Perrin’s Gram._, p. 237. “For want of a process of events, neither knowledge nor elegance preserve the reader from weariness.”–JOHNSON: _in Crabb’s Syn._, p. 511. “Neither history nor tradition furnish such information.”–_Robertson’s Amer._, Vol. i, p. 2. “Neither the form nor power of the liquids have varied materially.”–_Knight, on the Greek Alph._, p. 16. “Where neither noise nor motion are concerned.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 55. “Neither Charles nor his brother were qualified to support such a system.”–_Junius_, p. 250. “When, therefore, neither the liveliness of representation, nor the warmth of passion, serve, as it were, to cover the trespass, it is not safe to leave the beaten track.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 381. “In many countries called Christian, neither Christianity, nor its evidence, are fairly laid before men.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 269. “Neither the intellect nor the heart are capable of being driven.”–_Abbott’s Teacher_, p. 20. “Throughout this hymn, neither Apollo nor Diana are in any way connected with the Sun or Moon.”–_Coleridge’s Introd._, p. 199. “Of which, neither he, nor this Grammar, take any notice.”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 346. “Neither their solicitude nor their foresight extend so far.”–_Robertson’s Amer._, Vol. i, p. 287. “Neither Gomara, nor Oviedo, nor Herrera, consider Ojeda, or his companion Vespucci, as the first discoverers of the continent of America.”–_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 471. “Neither the general situation of our colonies, nor that particular distress which forced the inhabitants of Boston to take up arms, have been thought worthy of a moment’s consideration.”–_Junius_, p. 174.
“Nor War nor Wisdom yield our Jews delight, They will not study, and they dare not fight.” –_Crabbe’s Borough_, p. 50.
“Nor time nor chance breed such confusions yet, Nor are the mean so rais’d, nor sunk the great.” –_Rowe’s Lucan_, B. iii, l. 213.
UNDER NOTE I.–NOMINATIVES THAT DISAGREE.
“The definite article _the_, designates what particular thing or things is meant.”–_Merchant’s School Gram._, p. 23 and p. 33. “Sometimes a word or words necessary to complete the grammatical construction of a sentence, is not expressed, but omitted by ellipsis.”–_Burr’s Gram._, p. 26. “Ellipsis, or abbreviations, is the wheels of language.”–_Maunder’s Gram._, p. 12. “The conditions or tenor of none of them appear at this day.”–_Hutchinson’s Hist. of Mass._, Vol. i, p. 16. “Neither men nor money were wanting for the service.”–_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 279. “Either our own feelings, or the representation of those of others, require frequent emphatic distinction.”–_Barber’s Exercises_, p. 13. “Either Atoms and Chance, or Nature are uppermost: now I am for the latter part of the disjunction,”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 181. “Their riches or poverty are generally proportioned to their activity or indolence.”–_Ross Cox’s Narrative_. “Concerning the other part of him, neither you nor he seem to have entertained an idea.”–_Bp. Horne_. “Whose earnings or income are so small.”–_N. E. Discipline_, p. 130. “Neither riches nor fame render a man happy.”–_Day’s Gram._, p. 71. “The references to the pages, always point to the first volume, unless the Exercises or Key are mentioned.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 283.
UNDER NOTE II.–COMPLETE THE CONCORD.
“My lord, you wrong my father; nor he nor I are capable of harbouring a thought against your peace.”–_Walpole_. “There was no division of acts; no pauses or interval between them; but the stage was continually full; occupied either by the actors, or the chorus.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 463. “Every word ending in B, P, F, as also many in V, are of this order.”–_Dr. Murray’s Hist. of Lang._, i, 73. “As proud as we are of human reason, nothing can be more absurd than the general system of human life and human knowledge.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 347. “By which the body of sin and death is done away, and we cleansed.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 165. “And those were already converted, and regeneration begun in them.”–_Ib._, iii, 433. “For I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.”–_Luke_, i, 18. “Who is my mother, or my brethren?”–_Mark_, iii, 33. “Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering.”–_Isaiah_, xl, 16. “Information has been obtained, and some trials made.”–_Society in America_, i, 308. “It is as obvious, and its causes more easily understood.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 84. “All languages furnish examples of this kind, and the English as many as any other.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 157. “The winters are long, and the cold intense.”–_Morse’s Geog._, p. 39. “How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof!”–_Prov._, v, 12. “The vestals were abolished by Theodosius the Great, and the fire of Vesta extinguished.”–_Lempriere, w. Vestales_. “Riches beget pride; pride, impatience.”–_Bullions’s Practical Lessons_, p. 89. “Grammar is not reasoning, any more than organization is thought, or letters sounds.”–_Enclytica_, p. 90. “Words are implements, and grammar a machine.”–_Ib._, p. 91.
UNDER NOTE III.–PLACE OF THE FIRST PERSON.
“I or thou art the person who must undertake the business proposed.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 184. “I and he were there.”–_Dr. Ash’s Gram._, p. 51. “And we dreamed a dream in one night, I and he.”–_Gen._, xli, 11. “If my views remain the same as mine and his were in 1833.”–GOODELL: _Liberator_, ix, 148. “I and my father were riding out.”–_Inst._, p. 158. “The premiums were given to me and George.”–_Ib._ “I and Jane are invited.”–_Ib._ “They ought to invite me and my sister.”–_Ib._ “I and you intend going.”–_Guy’s Gram._, p. 55. “I and John are going to Town.”–_British Gram._, p. 193. “I, and he are sick. I, and thou are well.”–_James Brown’s American Gram._, Boston Edition of 1841, p. 123. “I, and he is. I, and thou art. I, and he writes.”–_Ib._, p. 126. “I, and they are well. I, thou, and she were walking.”–_Ib._, p. 127.
UNDER NOTE IV.–DISTINCT SUBJECT PHRASES.
“To practise tale-bearing, or even to countenance it, are great injustice.”–_Brown’s Inst._, p. 159. “To reveal secrets, or to betray one’s friends, are contemptible perfidy.”–_Ib._ “To write all substantives with capital letters, or to exclude them from adjectives derived from proper names, may perhaps be thought offences too small for animadversion; but the evil of innovation is always something.”–_Dr. Barrow’s Essays_, p. 88. “To live in such families, or to have such servants, are blessings from God.”–_Family Commentary_, p. 64. “How they portioned out the country, what revolutions they experienced, or what wars they maintained, are utterly unknown.”–_Goldsmith’s Greece_, Vol. i, p. 4. “To speak or to write perspicuously and agreeably, are attainments of the utmost consequence to all who purpose, either by speech or writing, to address the public.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 11.
UNDER NOTE V.–MAKE THE VERBS AGREE.
“Doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?”–_Matt._, xviii, 12. “Did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced?”–_Jer._, xxvi, 19. “And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgement with thee?”–_Job_, xiv, 3. “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.”–_James_, i, 26. “If thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or buyest aught of thy neighbour’s hand, ye shall not oppress one an other.”–_Leviticus_, xxv, 14. “And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee, shall have become poor, and be sold to thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond servant.”–WEBSTER’S BIBLE: _Lev._, xxv, 39. “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,” &c.–_Matt._, v, 23. “Anthea was content to call a coach, and crossed the brook.”–_Rambler_, No. 34. “It is either totally suppressed, or appears in its lowest and most imperfect form.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 23. “But if any man be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.”–_John_, ix, 31. “Whereby his righteousness and obedience, death and sufferings without, become profitable unto us, and is made ours.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 164. “Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had aught against me.”–_Acts_, xxiv, 19.
“Yes! thy proud lords, unpitied land, shall see That man hath yet a soul, and dare be free.”–_Campbell_.
UNDER NOTE VI.–USE SEPARATE NOMINATIVES.
“_H_ is only an aspiration or breathing; and sometimes at the beginning of a word is not sounded at all.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 4. “Man was made for society, and ought to extend his good will to all men.”–_Ib._, p. 12; _Murray’s_, i, 170. “There is, and must be, a supreme being, of infinite goodness, power, and wisdom, who created and supports them.”–_Beattie’s Moral Science_, p. 201. “Were you not affrighted, and mistook a spirit for a body?”–_Watson’s Apology_, p. 122. “The latter noun or pronoun is not governed by the conjunction _than_ or _as_, but agrees with the verb, or is governed by the verb or the preposition, expressed or understood.”– _Murray’s Gram._, p. 214; _Russell’s_, 103; _Bacon’s_, 51; _Alger’s_, 71; _R. C. Smith’s_, 179. “He had mistaken his true interests, and found himself forsaken.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 201. “The amputation was exceedingly well performed, and saved the patient’s life.”–_Ib._, p. 191. “The intentions of some of these philosophers, nay, of many [,] might have been, and probably were good.”–_Ib._, p. 216. “This may be true, and yet will not justify the practice.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 33. “From the practice of those who have had a liberal education, and are therefore presumed to be best acquainted with men and things.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 161. “For those energies and bounties which created and preserve the universe.”–_J. Q. Adams’s Rhet._, i, 327. “I shall make it once for all and hope it will be afterwards remembered.”–_Blair’s Lect._, p. 45. “This consequence is drawn too abruptly, and needed more explanation.”–_Ib._, p. 229. “They must be used with more caution, and require more preparation.”– _Ib._, p. 153. “The apostrophe denotes the omission of an _i_, which was formerly inserted, and made an addition of a syllable to the word.”– _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 67. “The succession may be rendered more various or more uniform, but in one shape or an other is unavoidable.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i. 253. “It excites neither terror nor compassion, nor is agreeable in any respect.”–_Ib._, ii, 277.
“Cheap vulgar arts, whose narrowness affords No flight for thoughts, but poorly stick at words.”–_Denham_.
UNDER NOTE VII.–MIXTURE OF DIFFERENT STYLES.
“Let us read the living page, whose every character delighteth and instructs us.”–_Maunder’s Gram._, p. 5. “For if it be in any degree obscure, it puzzles, and doth not please.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 357. “When a speaker addresseth himself to the understanding, he proposes the instruction of his hearers.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 13. “As the wine which strengthens and refresheth the heart.”–_H. Adams’s View_, p. 221. “This truth he wrappeth in an allegory, and feigns that one of the goddesses had taken up her abode with the other.”–_Pope’s Works_, iii, 46. “God searcheth and understands the heart.”–_Thomas a Kempis_. “The grace of God, that brings salvation hath appeared to all men.”–_Barclays Works_, i, 366. “Also we speak not in the words, which man’s wisdom teaches; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.”–_Ib._, i, 388. “But he hath an objection, which he urgeth, and by which he thinks to overturn all.”–_Ib._, iii, 327. “In that it gives them not that comfort and joy which it giveth unto them who love it.”–_Ib._, i, 142. “Thou here misunderstood the place and misappliedst it.”–_Ib._, iii, 38. “Like the barren heath in the desert, which knoweth not when good comes.”–_Friends’ Extracts_, p. 128; _N. E. Discip._, p. 75. “It speaketh of the time past, but shews that something was then doing, but not quite finished.”–_E. Devis’s Gram._, p. 42. “It subsists in spite of them; it advanceth unobserved.”–PASCAL: _Addison’s Evidences_, p. 17.
“But where is he, the Pilgrim of my song?– Methinks he cometh late and tarries long.”–_Byron_, Cant. iv, St. 164.
UNDER NOTE VII.–CONFUSION OF MOODS.
“If a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them is gone astray, &c.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 227 with 197. “As a speaker advances in his discourse, especially if it be somewhat impassioned, and increases in energy and earnestness, a higher and louder tone will naturally steal upon him.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 68. “If one man esteem a day above another, and another esteemeth every day alike; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 439. “If there be but one body of legislators, it is no better than a tyranny; if there are only two, there will want a casting voice.”–_Addison, Spect._, No. 287. “Should you come up this way, and I am still here, you need not be assured how glad I shall be to see you.”–_Ld. Byron_. “If he repent and becomes holy, let him enjoy God and heaven.”–_Brownson’s Elwood_, p. 248. “If thy fellow approach thee, naked and destitute, and thou shouldst say unto him, ‘Depart in peace; be you warmed and filled;’ and yet shouldst give him not those things that are needful to him, what benevolence is there in thy conduct?”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 108.
“Get on your nightgown, lost occasion calls us. And show us to be watchers.”
–_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 278.
“But if it climb, with your assisting hands, The Trojan walls, and in the city stands.” –_Dryden’s Virgil_, ii, 145.
————————–“Though Heaven’s king Ride on thy wings, and thou with thy compeers, Us’d to the yoke, draw’st his triumphant wheels.” –_Milton, P. L._, iv, l. 973.
“Us’d to the yoke, _draw’dst_ his triumphant wheels.” –_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 106.
UNDER NOTE IX.–IMPROPER ELLIPSES.
“Indeed we have seriously wondered that Murray should leave some things as he has.”–_Education Reporter_. “Which they neither have nor can do.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii, 73. “The Lord hath, and doth, and will reveal his will to his people, and hath and doth raise up members of his body,” &c.–_Ib._, i, 484. “We see then, that the Lord hath, and doth give such.”–_Ib._, i, 484. “Towards those that have or do declare themselves members.”–_Ib._, i, 494. “For which we can, and have given our sufficient reasons.”–_Ib._, i, 507. “When we mention the several properties of the different words in sentences, in the same manner as we have those of _William’s_, above, what is the exercise called?”–_Smith’s New Gram._, p. 12. “It is, however to be doubted whether this peculiarity of the Greek idiom, ever has or will obtain extensively in the English.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. 47. “Why did not the Greeks and Romans abound in auxiliary words as much as we?”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. i, p. 111. “Who delivers his sentiments in earnest, as they ought to be in order to move and persuade.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 151.
UNDER NOTE X.–DO, USED AS A SUBSTITUTE.
“And I would avoid it altogether, if it could be done.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 36. “Such a sentiment from a man expiring of his wounds, is truly heroic, and must elevate the mind to the greatest height that can be done by a single expression.”–_Ib._, i, 204. “Successive images making thus deeper and deeper impressions, must elevate more than any single image can do.”–_Ib._, i, 205. “Besides making a deeper impression than can be done by cool reasoning.”–_Ib._, ii, 273. “Yet a poet, by the force of genius alone, can rise higher than a public speaker can do.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 338. “And the very same reason that has induced several grammarians to go so far as they have done, should have induced them to go farther.”–_Priestley’s Gram., Pref._, p. vii. “The pupil should commit the first section perfectly, before he does the second part of grammar.”– _Bradley’s Gram._, p. 77. “The Greek _ch_ was pronounced hard, as we now do in _chord_.”–_Booth’s Introd. to Dict._, p. 61. “They pronounce the syllables in a different manner from what they do at other times.”– _Murray’s Eng. Reader_, p. xi. “And give him the formal cool reception that Simon had done.”–_Dr. Scott, on Luke_, vii. “I do not say, as some have done.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 271. “If he suppose the first, he may do the last.”–_Barclay’s Works_, ii, 406. “Who are now despising Christ in his inward appearance, as the Jews of old did him in his outward.”–_Ib._, i, 506. “That text of Revelations must not be understood, as he doth it.”– _Ib._, iii, 309. “Till the mode of parsing the noun is so familiar to him, that he can do it readily.”–_Smith’s New Gram._, p. 13. “Perhaps it is running the same course which Rome had done before.”–_Middleton’s Life of Cicero_. “It ought even on this ground to be avoided; which may easily be done by a different construction.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 312. “These two languages are now pronounced in England as no other nation in Europe does besides.”–_Creighton’s Dict._, p. xi. “Germany ran the same risk that Italy had done.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 211: see _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 196.
UNDER NOTE XI.–PRETERITS AND PARTICIPLES.
“The Beggars themselves will be broke in a trice.”–_Swift’s Poems_, p. 347. “The hoop is hoist above his nose.”–_Ib._, p. 404. “My heart was lift up in the ways of the Lord. 2 CHRON.”–_Joh. Dict., w. Lift_. “Who sin so oft have mourned, Yet to temptation ran.”–_Burns_. “Who would not have let them appeared.”–_Steele_. “He would have had you sought for ease at the hands of Mr. Legality.”–_Pilgrim’s Progress_, p. 31. “From me his madding mind is start, And wooes the widow’s daughter of the glen.”–SPENSER: _Joh. Dict., w. Glen_. “The man has spoke, and still speaks.”–_Ash’s Gram._, p. 54. “For you have but mistook me all this while.”–_Beauties of Shak._, p. 114. “And will you rent our ancient love asunder.”–_Ib._, p. 52. “Mr. Birney has plead the inexpediency of passing such resolutions.”– _Liberator_, Vol. xiii, p. 194. “Who have wore out their years in such most painful Labours.”–_Littleton’s Dict., Pref_. “And in the conclusion you were chose probationer.”–_Spectator_, No. 32.
“How she was lost, took captive, made a slave; And how against him set that should her save.”–_Bunyan_.
UNDER NOTE XII.–VERBS CONFOUNDED.
“But Moses preferred to wile away his time.”–_Parker’s English Composition_, p. 15. “His face shown with the rays of the sun.”–_Calvin’s Inst._, 4to, p. 76. “Whom they had sat at defiance so lately.”– _Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 320. “And when he was set, his disciples came unto him.”–_Matt._, v, 1. “When he was set down on the judgement-seat.”– _Ib._, xxvii, 19. “And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.”–_Luke_, xxii, 55. “So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?”–_John_, xiii, 12. “Even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”–_Rev._, iii, 21. “We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.”– _Heb._, viii, 1. “And is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”–_Ib._, xii, 2.[402] “He sat on foot a furious persecution.”– _Payne’s Geog._, ii, 418. “There layeth an obligation upon the saints, to help such.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 389. “There let him lay.”–_Byron’s Pilgrimage_, C. iv, st. 180. “Nothing but moss, and shrubs, and stinted trees, can grow upon it.”–_Morse’s Geog._, p. 43. “Who had lain out considerable sums purely to distinguish themselves.”–_Goldsmith’s Greece_, i, 132. “Whereunto the righteous fly and are safe.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 146. “He raiseth from supper, and laid aside his garments.”–_Ib._, i, 438. “Whither–Oh! whither shall I fly?”–_Murray’s English Reader_, p. 123. “Flying from an adopted murderer.”–_Ib._, p. 122. “To you I fly for refuge.”–_Ib._, p. 124. “The sign that should warn his disciples to fly from approaching ruin.”–_Keith’s Evidences_, p. 62. “In one she sets as a prototype for exact imitation.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. xxiii. “In which some only bleat, bark, mew, winnow, and bray, a little better than others.”–_Ib._, p. 90. “Who represented to him the unreasonableness of being effected with such unmanly fears.”–_Rollin’s Hist._, ii, 106. “Thou sawedst every action.”–_Guy’s School Gram._, p. 46. “I taught, thou taughtedst, he or she taught.”–_Coar’s Gram._, p. 79. “Valerian is taken by Sapor and flead alive, A. D. 260.”–_Lempriere’s Chron. Table, Dict._, p. xix. “What a fine vehicle is it now become for all conceptions of the mind!”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 139. “What are become of so many productions?” –_Volney’s Ruins_, p. 8. “What are become of those ages of abundance and of life?”–_Keith’s Evidences_, p. 107. “The Spartan admiral was sailed to the Hellespont.”–_Goldsmiths Greece_, i, 150. “As soon as he was landed, the multitude thronged about him.”–_Ib._, i, 160. “Cyrus was arrived at Sardis.”–_Ib._, i, 161. “Whose year was expired.”–_Ib._, i, 162. “It had better have been, ‘that faction which.'”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 97. “This people is become a great nation.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 153; _Ingersoll’s_, 249. “And here we are got into the region of ornament.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 181. “The ungraceful parenthesis which follows, had far better have been avoided.”–_Ib._, p. 215. “Who forced him under water, and there held him until drounded.”–_Indian Wars_, p. 55.
“I had much rather be myself the slave, And wear the bonds, than fasten them on him.”–_Cowper_.
UNDER NOTE XIII.–WORDS THAT EXPRESS TIME.
“I had finished my letter before my brother arrived.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 139. “I had written before I received his letter.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 82. “From what has been formerly delivered.”–_Ib._, p. 182. “Arts were of late introduced among them.”–_Ib._, p. 245. “I am not of opinion that such rules can be of much use, unless persons saw them exemplified.”–_Ib._, p. 336. “If we use the noun itself, we should say, ‘This composition is John’s.’ “–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 174. “But if the assertion referred to something, that is not always the same, or supposed to be so, the past tense must be applied.”–_Ib._, p. 191. “They told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by.”–_Luke_, xviii, 37. “There is no particular intimation but that I continued to work, even to the present moment.”–_R. W. Green’s Gram._, p. 39. “Generally, as was observed already, it is but hinted in a single word or phrase.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 36. “The wittiness of the passage was already illustrated.”–_Ib._, p. 36. “As was observed already.”–_Ib._, p. 56. “It was said already in general.”–_Ib._, p. 95. “As I hinted already.”–_Ib._, p. 134. “What I believe was hinted once already.”–_Ib._, p. 148. “It is obvious, as hath been hinted formerly, that this is but an artificial and arbitrary connexion.”–_Ib._, p. 282. “They have done anciently a great deal of hurt.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 109. “Then said Paul, I knew not, brethren, that he is the High Priest.”–_Dr. Webster’s Bible_: Acts, xxiii, 5. “Most prepositions originally denote the relation of place, and have been thence transferred to denote by similitude other relations.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 65; _Churchill’s_, 116. “His gift was but a poor offering, when we consider his estate.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 194. “If he should succeed, and should obtain his end, he will not be the happier for it.”–_Murray’s Gram._, i, p. 207. “These are torrents that swell to-day, and have spent themselves by to-morrow.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 286. “Who have called that wheat to-day, which they have called tares to-morrow.”–_Barclay’s Works_, iii. 168. “He thought it had been one of his tenants.”–_Ib._, i, 11. “But if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.”–_Luke_, xvi, 30. “Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”–_Ib., verse_ 31. “But it is while men slept that the archenemy has always sown his tares.”–_The Friend_, x, 351. “Crescens would not fail to have exposed him.”–_Addison’s Evidences_, p. 30.
“Bent was his bow, the Grecian hearts to wound; Fierce as he mov’d, his silver shafts resound.” –_Pope, Iliad_, B. i, l. 64.
UNDER NOTE XIV.–VERBS OF COMMANDING, &c.
“Had I commanded you to have done this, you would have thought hard of it.”–_G. B._ “I found him better than I expected to have found him.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 126. “There are several smaller faults, which I at first intended to have enumerated.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 246. “Antithesis, therefore, may, on many occasions, be employed to advantage, in order to strengthen the impression which we intend that any object should make.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 168. “The girl said, if her master would but have let her had money, she might have been well long ago.”–See _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 127. “Nor is there the least ground to fear, that we should be cramped here within too narrow limits.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 163; _Murray’s Gram._, i, 360. “The Romans, flushed with success, expected to have retaken it.”–_Hooke’s Hist._, p. 37. “I would not have let fallen an unseasonable pleasantry in the venerable presence of Misery, to be entitled to all the wit that ever Rabelais scattered.”–STERNE: _Enfield’s Speaker_, p. 54. “We expected that he would have arrived last night.”–_Inst._ p. 192. “Our friends intended to have met us.”–_Ib._ “We hoped to have seen you.”–_Ib._ “He would not have been allowed to have entered.”–_Ib._
UNDER NOTE XV.–PERMANENT PROPOSITIONS.
“Cicero maintained that whatsoever was useful was good.”–“I observed that love constituted the whole moral character of God.”–_Dwight_. “Thinking that one gained nothing by being a good man.”–_Voltaire_. “I have already told you that I was a gentleman.”–_Fontaine_. “If I should ask, whether ice and water were two distinct species of things.”–_Locke_. “A stranger to the poem would not easily discover that this was verse.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 12mo, p. 260. “The doctor affirmed, that fever always produced thirst.”–_Inst._, p. 192. “The ancients asserted, that virtue was its own reward.”–_Ib._ “They should not have repeated the error, of insisting that the infinitive was a mere noun.”–_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 288. “It was observed in Chap. III. that the distinctive _or_ had a double use.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 154. “Two young gentlemen, who have made a discovery that there was no God.”–_Swift_.
RULE XVIII.–INFINITIVES.
The Infinitive Mood is governed in general by the preposition TO, which commonly connects it to a finite verb: as, “I desire TO _learn_.”–_Dr. Adam_. “Of me the Roman people have many pledges, which I must strive, with my utmost endeavours, TO _preserve_, TO _defend_, TO _confirm_, and TO _redeem_.”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 41.
“What if the foot, ordain’d the dust TO _tread_, Or hand TO _toil_, aspir’d TO _be_ the head?”–_Pope_.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVIII.
OBS. 1.–No word is more variously explained by grammarians, than this word TO, which is put before the verb in the infinitive mood. Johnson, Walker, Scott, Todd, and some other lexicographers, call it an _adverb_; but, in explaining its use, they say it denotes certain _relations_, which it is not the office of an adverb to express. (See the word in _Johnson’s Quarto Dictionary_.) D. St. Quentin, in his Rudiments of General Grammar, says, “_To_, before a verb, is an _adverb_;” and yet his “Adverbs are words that are joined to verbs or adjectives, and express some _circumstance_ or _quality_.” See pp. 33 and 39. Lowth, Priestley, Fisher, L. Murray, Webster, Wilson, S. W. Clark, Coar, Comly, Blair, Felch, Fisk, Greenleaf, Hart, Weld, Webber, and others, call it a _preposition_; and some of these ascribe to it the government of the verb, while others do not. Lowth says, “The _preposition_ TO, placed before the verb, _makes_ the infinitive mood.”–_Short Gram._, p. 42. “Now this,” says Horne Tooke, “is manifestly not so: for TO placed before the verb _loveth_, will not make the infinitive mood. He would have said more truly, that TO placed before some _nouns_, makes _verbs_.”–_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 287.
OBS. 2.–Skinner, in his _Canones Etymologici_, calls this TO “an _equivocal article_,”–_Tooke_, ib., i, 288. Nutting, a late American grammarian, says: “The _sign_ TO is no other than the Greek article _to_; as, _to agapan_ [, to love]; or, as some say, it is the Saxon _do_”–_Practical Gram._, p. 66. Thus, by suggesting two false and inconsistent derivations, though he uses not the name _equivocal article_, he first makes the word an _article_, and then _equivocal_–equivocal in etymology, and of course in meaning.[403] Nixon, in his English Parser, supposes it to be, _unequivocally_, the Greek article [Greek: to], _the_. See the work, p. 83. D. Booth says, “_To_ is, by us, applied to Verbs; but it was the neuter Article (_the_) among the Greeks.”–_Introd. to Analyt. Dict._, p. 60. According to Horne Tooke, “Minshew also distinguishes between the preposition TO, and the _sign_ of the infinitive TO. Of the former he is silent, and of the latter he says: ‘To, as _to_ make, _to_ walk, _to_ do, a Graeco articulo [Greek: to].’ But Dr. Gregory Sharpe is persuaded, that our language has taken it from the _Hebrew_. And Vossius derives the correspondent Latin preposition AD from the same source.”–_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 293.
OBS. 3.–Tooke also says, “I observe, that Junius and Skinner and Johnson, have not chosen to give the slightest hint concerning the derivation of TO.”–_Ibid._ But, certainly, of his _adverb_ TO, Johnson gives this hint: “TO, Saxon; _te_, Dutch.” And Webster, who calls it not an adverb, but a preposition, gives the same hint of the source from which it comes to us. This is as much as to say, it is etymologically the old Saxon preposition _to_–which, truly, it is–the very same word that, for a thousand years or more, has been used before nouns and pronouns to govern the objective case. Tooke himself does not deny this; but, conceiving that almost all particles, whether English or any other, can be traced back to ancient verbs or nouns, he hunts for the root of this, in a remoter region, where he pretends to find that _to_ has the same origin as _do_; and though he detects the former in a _Gothic noun_, he scruples not to identify it with an _auxiliary verb_! Yet he elsewhere expressly denies, “that _any_ words change their nature by use, so as to belong sometimes to one part of speech, and sometimes to another.”–_Div. of Pur._, Vol. i, p. 68.
OBS 4.–From this, the fair inference is, that he will have both _to_ and _do_ to be “_nouns substantive_” still! “Do (the _auxiliary_ verb, as it has been called) is derived from the same root, and is indeed the same word as TO.”–_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 290. “Since FROM means _commencement_ or _beginning_, TO must mean _end_ or _termination_.”–_Ib._, i, 283. “The preposition TO (in Dutch written TOE and TOT, a little nearer to the original) is the Gothic substantive [Gothic: taui] or [Gothic: tauhts], i. e. _act, effect, result, consummation._ Which Gothic substantive is indeed itself no other than the past participle of the verb [Gothic: taujan], _agere_. And what is _done_, is _terminated, ended, finished_.”–_Ib._, i, 285. No wonder that Johnson, Skinner, and Junius, gave no hint of _this_ derivation: it is not worth the ink it takes, if it cannot be made more sure. But in showing its bearing on the verb, the author not unjustly complains of our grammarians, that: “Of all the points which they endeavour to _shuffle over_, there is none in which they do it more grossly than in this of the infinitive.”–_Ib._, i, 287.
OBS. 5.–Many are content to call the word TO a _prefix_, a _particle_, a _little word_, a _sign of the infinitive_, a _part of the infinitive_, a _part of the verb_, and the like, without telling us whence it comes, how it differs from the preposition _to_, or to what part of speech it belongs. It certainly is not what we usually call a _prefix_, because we never _join it to_ the verb; yet there are three instances in which it becomes such, before a noun: viz., _to-day, to-night, to-morrow_. If it is a “_particle_,” so is any other preposition, as well as every small and invariable word. If it is a “_little word_,” the whole bigness of a preposition is unquestionably found in it; and no “_word_” is so small but that it must belong to some one of the ten classes called parts of speech. If it is a “_sign of the infinitive_,” because it is used before no other mood; so is it a _sign of the objective case_, or of what in Latin is called the dative, because it precedes no other case. If we suppose it to be a “_part of the infinitive_,” or a “_part of the verb_,” it is certainly no _necessary_ part of either; because there is no verb which may not, in several different ways, be properly used in the infinitive without it. But if it be a part of the infinitive, it must be a _verb_, and ought to be classed with the _auxiliaries_. Dr. Ash accordingly placed it among the auxiliaries; but he says, (inaccurately, however,) “The auxiliary _sign seems_ to have the nature of _adverbs._”–_Grammatical Institutes_, p. 33. “The auxiliary [signs] _are, to, do, did, have, had, shall, will, may, can, must, might_,” &c.–_Ib._, p. 31.
OBS. 6.–It is clear, as I have already shown, that the word _to_ may be a _sign_ of the infinitive, and yet not be a _part_ of it. Dr. Ash supposes, it may even be a part of the _mood_, and yet not be a part of the _verb_. How this can be, I see not, unless the mood consists in something else than either the form or the parts of the verb. This grammarian says, “In parsing, every word should be considered as a _distinct part of speech_: for though two or more words may be united to form a mode, a tense, or a comparison; yet it seems quite improper to unite two or more words to make a noun, a verb, an adjective, &c.”–_Gram. Inst._, p. 28. All the auxiliaries, therefore, and the particle _to_ among them, he parses separately; but he follows not his own advice, to make them distinct parts of speech; for he calls them all _signs_ only, and signs are not one of his ten parts of speech. And the participle too, which is one of the ten, and which he declares to be “no part of the verb,” he parses separately; calling it a verb, and not a participle, as often as it accompanies any of his auxiliary signs. This is certainly a greater impropriety than there can be in supposing an auxiliary and a participle to constitute a verb; for the mood and tense are the properties of the compound, and ought not to be ascribed to the principal term only. Not so with the preposition _to_ before the infinitive, any more than with the conjunction _if_ before the subjunctive. These may well be parsed as separate parts of speech; for these moods are sometimes formed, and are completely distinguished in each of their tenses, without the adding of these signs.
OBS. 7.–After a careful examination of what others have taught respecting this disputed point in grammar, I have given, in the preceding rule, that explanation which I consider to be the most correct and the most simple, and also as well authorized as any. Who first parsed the infinitive in this manner, I know not; probably those who first called the _to_ a _preposition_; among whom were Lowth and the author of the old British Grammar. The doctrine did not originate with me, or with Comly, or with any American author. In Coar’s English Grammar, published in London in 1796. the phrase _to trample_ is parsed thus: “_To_–A preposition, serving for a sign of the infinitive mood to the verb _Trample_–A verb neuter, infinitive mood, present tense, _governed by the preposition_ TO before it. RULE. The preposition _to_ before a verb, is the sign of the infinitive mood.” See the work, p. 263. This was written by a gentleman who speaks of his “long habit of teaching the Latin Tongue,” and who was certainly partial enough to the principles of Latin grammar, since he adopts in English the whole detail of Latin cases.
OBS 8.–In Fisher’s English Grammar, London, 1800, (of which there had been many earlier editions,) we find the following rule of syntax: “When two principal _Verbs_ come together, the latter of them expresses an unlimited Sense, with the Preposition _to_ before it; as _he loved to learn; I chose to dance_: and is called the _infinitive Verb_, which may also follow a Name or Quality; as, _a Time to sing; a Book delightful to read_.” That this author supposed the infinitive to be _governed_ by _to_, and not by the preceding verb, noun, or adjective, is plain from the following note, which he gives in his margin: “The Scholar will best understand this, by being told that _infinite_ or _invariable Verbs_, having neither Number, Person, nor Nominative Word belonging to them, are known or _governed by the Preposition_ TO coming before them. The Sign _to_ is often understood; as, Bid Robert and his company (_to_) tarry.”–_Fisher’s New Gram._, p. 95.
OBS. 9.–The forms of parsing, and also the rules, which are given in the early English grammars, are so very defective, that it is often impossible to say positively, what their authors did, or did not, intend to teach. Dr. Lowth’s specimen of “grammatical resolution” contains four infinitives. In his explanation of the first, the preposition and the verb are parsed separately, as above; except that he says nothing about government. In his account of the other three, the two words are taken together, and called a “_verb_, in the infinitive _mode_.” But as he elsewhere calls the particle _to_ a preposition, and nowhere speaks of any thing else as governing the infinitive, it seems fair to infer, that he conceived the verb to be the regimen of this preposition.[404] If such was his idea, we have the learned Doctor’s authority in opposition to that of his professed admirers and copyists. Of these, Lindley Murray is doubtless the most famous. But Murray’s twelfth rule of syntax, while it expressly calls _to_ before the infinitive a _preposition_, absurdly takes away from it this regimen, and leaves us a preposition that _governs nothing_, and has apparently nothing to do with the _relation_ of the terms between which it occurs.
OBS. 10.–Many later grammarians, perceiving the absurdity of calling _to_ before the infinitive a _preposition_ without supposing it to govern the verb, have studiously avoided this name; and have either made the “_little word_” a supernumerary part of speech, or treated it as no part of speech at all. Among these, if I mistake not, are Allen, Lennie, Bullions, Alger, Guy, Churchill, Hiley, Nutting, Mulligan, Spencer, and Wells. Except Comly, the numerous modifiers of Murray’s Grammar are none of them more consistent, on this point, than was Murray himself. Such of them as do not follow him literally, either deny, or forbear to affirm, that _to_ before a verb is a _preposition_; and consequently either tell us not what it is, or tell us falsely; some calling it “_a part of the verb_,” while they neither join it to the verb as a prefix, nor include it among the auxiliaries. Thus Kirkham: “_To_ is not a preposition when _joined to_ a verb in this mood; thus, _to_ ride, _to_ rule; but it should be parsed _with the verb_, and _as a part_ of it.”–_Gram. in Familiar Lect._, p. 137. So R. C. Smith: “This little word _to_ when _used before_ verbs in this manner, is not a preposition, but forms a part of the verb, and, in parsing, should be so considered.”–_Productive Gram._, p. 65. How can that be “_a part_ of the verb,” which is _a word_ used _before_ it? or how is _to_ “joined to the verb,” or made a part of it, in the phrase, “_to_ ride?” But Smith does not abide by his own doctrine; for, in an other part of his book, he adopts the phraseology of Murray, and makes _to_ a preposition: saying, “The _preposition_ TO, though generally used before the latter verb, is sometimes properly omitted; as, ‘I heard him say it;’ instead of ‘_to_ say it.'”–_Productive Gram._, p. 156. See _Murray’s Rule_ 12th.
OBS. 11.–Most English grammarians have considered the word _to_ as a part of the infinitive, a part _of the verb_; and, like the teachers of Latin, have referred the government of this mood to a preceding verb. But the rule which they give, is partial, and often inapplicable; and their exceptions to it, or the heterogeneous parts into which some of them divide it, are both numerous and puzzling. They teach that at least half of the ten different parts of speech “_frequently_ govern the infinitive:” if so, there should be a distinct rule for each; for why should the government of one part of speech be made an exception to that of an other? and, if this be done, with respect to the infinitive, why not also with respect to the objective case? In all instances to which their rule is applicable, the rule which I have given, amounts to the same thing; and it obviates the necessity for their numerous exceptions, and the embarrassment arising from other constructions of the infinitive not noticed in them. Why then is the simplest solution imaginable still so frequently rejected for so much complexity and inconsistency? Or how can the more common rule in question be suitable for a child, if its applicability depends on a relation between the two verbs, which the preposition _to_ sometimes expresses, and sometimes does not?
OBS. 12.–All authors admit that in some instances, the sign _to_ is “superfluous and improper,” the construction and government appearing complete without it; and the “Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of Languages in the Albany Academy,” has recently published a grammar, in which he adopts the common rule, “One verb governs _another_ in the infinitive mood; as, _I desire to learn_;” and then remarks, “The infinitive after a verb is governed by it _only when the attribute expressed by the infinitive is either the subject or_ [the] _object of the other verb_. In such expressions as ‘_I read to learn_,’ the infinitive is _not governed_ by ‘I read,’ but depends on the phrase ‘_in order to_’ understood.”–_Bullions’s Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 110. But, “_I read ‘in order to’ to learn_,” is not English; though it might be, if either _to_ were any thing else than a preposition: as, “Now _set to to learn_ your lesson.” This broad exception, therefore, which embraces well-nigh half the infinitives in the language, though it contains some obvious truth, is both carelessly stated, and badly resolved. The single particle _to_ is quite sufficient, both to govern the infinitive, and to connect it to any antecedent term which can make sense with such an adjunct. But, in fact, the reverend author must have meant to use the “_little word_” but once; and also to deny that it is a preposition; for he elsewhere says expressly, though, beyond question, erroneously, “A preposition should never be used before the infinitive.”–_Ib._, p. 92. And he also says, “The _Infinitive_ mood expresses _a thing_ in a general manner, without distinction of number, person, _or time_, and commonly has TO _before_ it.”–_Ib._, Second Edition, p. 35. Now if TO is “_before_” the mood, it is certainly not _a part_ of it. And again, if this mood had no distinction of “_time_,” our author’s two tenses of it, and his own two special rules for their application, would be as absurd as is his notion of its government. See his _Obs. 6 and 7, ib._, p. 124.
OBS. 13.–Richard Hiley, too, a grammarian of perhaps more merit, is equally faulty in his explanation of the infinitive mood. In the first place, he absurdly says, “TO _before the infinitive mood_, is considered as forming _part of the verb_; but in _every other_ situation it is a preposition.”–_Hiley’s Gram._, Third Edition, p. 28. To teach that a “_part of the verb_” stands “_before the mood_,” is an absurdity manifestly greater, than the very opposite notion of Dr. Ash, that what is _not a part of the verb_, may yet be included _in the mood_. There is no need of either of these false suppositions; or of the suggestion, doubly false, that _to_ “in _every other_ situation, is a preposition.” What does _preposition_ mean? Is _to_ a preposition when it is placed _after_ a verb, and _not_ a preposition when it is placed _before_ it? For example: “I rise _to shut to_ the door.”–See _Luke_, xiii, 25.
OBS. 14.–In his syntax, this author further says, “When two verbs come together, the latter _must be in the infinitive mood, when it denotes the object_ of the former; as, ‘Study _to improve_.'” This is his _Rule_. Now look at his _Notes_. “1. When the latter verb _does not express_ the object, _but the end_, or something remote, the word _for_, or the words _in order to_, are understood; as, ‘I read _to learn_;’ that is, ‘I read _for_ to learn,’ or, ‘_in order_ [TO] _to_ learn.’ The word _for_, however, is never, in such instances, expressed in good language. 2. The infinitive is _frequently governed_ by adjectives, substantives, and participles; but in _this instance_ also, a preposition is understood, though _never expressed_; as, ‘Eager _to learn_;’ that is, ‘eager _for_ to learn;’ or, ‘_for_ learning;’ ‘A desire _to improve_;’ that is, ‘_for to improve_.'”–_Hiley’s Gram._, p. 89. Here we see the origin of some of Bullions’s blunders. _To_ is so small a word, it slips through the fingers of these gentlemen. Words utterly needless, and worse than needless, they foist into our language, in instances beyond number, to explain infinitives that occur at almost every breath. Their students must see that, “_I read to learn_,” and, “_I study to improve_,” with countless other examples of either sort, are very _different constructions_, and not to be parsed by the same rule! And here the only government of the infinitive which Hiley affirms, is immediately contradicted by the supposition of a needless _for_ “understood.”
OBS. 15.–In all such examples as, “I _read_ to _learn_,”–“I _strive_ to _learn_”–“Some _eat_ to _live_,”–“Some _live_ to _eat_,”–“She _sings_ to _cheer_ him,”–“I _come_ to _aid_ you,”–“I _go_ to _prepare_ a place for you,”–_the action_ and _its purpose_ are connected by the word _to_; and if, in the countless instances of this kind, the former verbs _do not govern_ the latter, it is not because the phraseology is elliptical, or ever was elliptical,[405] but because in no case is there any such government, except in the construction of those verbs which take the infinitive after them without the preposition _to_. Professor Bullions will have the infinitive to be governed by a finite verb, “when the _attribute expressed by the infinitive is the subject_ of the other verb.” An infinitive may be made _the subject_ of a finite verb; but this grammarian has mistaken the established meaning of _subject_, as well as of _attribute_, and therefore written nonsense. Dr. Johnson defines his _adverb_ TO, “A particle coming between two verbs, and noting the second as the _object_ of the first.” But of all the words which, according to my opponents and their oracles, govern the infinitive, probably not more than a quarter are such verbs as usually _have an object_ after them. Where then is the propriety of their notion of infinitive government? And what advantage has it, even where it is least objectionable?
OBS. 16.–Take for an example of this contrast the terms, “Strive to enter in–many will seek to enter in.”–_Luke_, xiii, 24. Why should it be thought more eligible to say, that the verb _strive_ or _will seek_ governs the infinitive verb _to enter_; than to say, that _to_ is a preposition, showing the relation between _strive_ and _enter_, or between _will seek_