Chapter I: Of Concord (1)

RULE I.--A verb agrees with its nominative in number and person, as,

_We teach_
_He learns_

where _we_ and _teach_ are each plural, and of the first person; _he_ and _learns_ are each singular, and of the third person.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as these, “I
likes,” “thou loves,” “he need,” “you was.” In reference to the
last example, the reader should observe, that _you_ is plural,
whether it relate to only one individual or to more, and ought
therefore to be joined with a plural verb. It is no argument to
say, that when we address a single person, we should use a verb
singular; for were this plea admissible, we ought to say, “you
wast,” for _wast_ is the second person singular, and not “you was,”
for _was_ is the first or third. Besides, no one says, “you is,” or
“you art,” but “you are.”

_Note_ 2.--The nominative to a verb is known by putting the
question, Who? or What? to the verb, as, _I read_; Who reads? Ans.
_I_.

_Note_ 3.--The infinitive often supplies the place of a nominative
to a verb, thus, “To excel in every laudable pursuit should be the
aim of every one.” What should be the aim? Ans. “To excel.”

_Note_ 4.--_As_, considered now as a conjunction, but being, in its
primitive signification, equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_,
likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, “As far as
regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful not to
offend.” Some grammarians suppose _it_ to be understood

_Note_ 5.--A verb is frequently construed with a whole clause as
its nominative, thus, “His being at enmity with Cæsar was the cause
of perpetual discord;” where, _his being at enmity_, the subject of
the affirmation, forms the nominative to the verb.

_Note_ 6.--The nominative, when the verb expresses command or
entreaty, is often suppressed, as, “speak,” for “speak thou,”
“honour the king,” for “honour ye the king.” It is also frequently
suppressed in poetry, as “Lives there, who loves his pain?”
_Milton_:--_i.e._ “Lives there a man?” “To whom the monarch;”
_replied_ being understood.

_Note_ 7.--A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a
plural verb, as, “Ten _sail_ of the line _were_ descried at
a distance.” It has been already observed, that the plural
termination is sometimes suppressed, as, “ten thousand,” “three
brace,” “four pair.”

_Note_ 8.--Priestley has said, that when the particle _there_ is
prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, “without a
very sensible impropriety.” But, if there be an impropriety at all,
why should the phraseology be adopted? His example is this, “There
necessarily follows from thence these plain and unquestionable
consequences.” Nothing, we apprehend, can justify this violation
of analogy. It should be, “follow.” Would Dr. Priestley have said
“There _is_ men who never reason?”

_Note_ 9.--The nominative generally precedes the verb, and is, in
some examples, known by nothing but its place. This arrangement,
however, is sometimes altered, and the verb placed before the
nominative.

1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, “Does wealth make
men happy?” Here the nominative _wealth_ follows the auxiliary:
“wealth does” would denote affirmation. “Stands Scotland where
it did?” Here also the nominative follows the verb, to denote
interrogation[119].

2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as “go thou,” “read ye.”

3rdly. When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the
conditional particle _if_ being understood, as, “Were I Alexander,”
said Parmenio, “I would accept the offer,” where “were I,” is
equivalent to “if I were.”

4thly. After the introductory word _there_, as “There was a man
sent by God, whose name was John.” “There are many who have
the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other acquirement.” This
arrangement is preferable to “a man was sent,” “many are,” &c.;
and, as a general rule, I observe, that this collocation is not
only proper but requisite, when a sentiment of importance is to be
introduced to the hearer’s particular attention.

5thly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehement emotion,
or when vivacity and force are to be imparted to the expression,
the nominative energetically follows the verb, as, “Great is Diana
of the Ephesians.” Alter the arrangement, saying, “Diana of the
Ephesians is great,” and you efface the signature of impetuosity,
and render the expression frigid and unaffecting. “Blessed is
he, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” “He is blessed” would
convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation
into a cold aphorism. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great city.”
The energy of the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge,
from the _epijeuxis_ or reduplication[120].

6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, when the
sentence or member begins with _nor_ or _neither_, as, “Nor _did
we_ doubt that rectitude of conduct would eventually prove itself
the best policy.” Thus also is placed the principal verb, as, “Nor
left he in the city a soul alive.”

Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb should precede
the nominative, there are several others not easily reducible
to any precise rule. In general, however, it may be remarked,
that the place of the nominative depends, in some degree, on its
connexion with other parts of the sentence. “Hence appears the
impossibility, that this undertaking should be carried on in a
monarchy.” _Impossibility_ being here in sense closely connected
with the following words, this arrangement is preferable to that
in the original. Hume says, “Hence the impossibility appears, that
this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”

Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but
signification singular, require a singular verb, as, “Mathematics
is a useful study.” This observation, however, is not justified by
general usage, reputable writers being in this case much divided.
(See p. 19.)

RULE II.--Two or more substantives singular, denoting different things, being equivalent to a plural, take a plural verb; or, when two or more substantives singular are collectively subjects of discourse, they require a plural verb, and plural representatives, as, “Cato and Cicero _were_ learned men; and _they_ loved _their_ country.”

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as this, “I do
not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of mind, which
fortune and your own wisdom _has_ given you, could be better
employed.”--_Swift._

_Note_ 2.--It was customary with the writers of antiquity, when the
substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a verb singular, as,
_mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est_, “understanding, reason,
and prudence _is_ in old men.” In imitation of these, some English
authors have, in similar instances, employed a verb singular. I
concur, however, with L. Murray in disapproving this phraseology.
For either the terms are synonymous, or they are not. If their
equivalence be admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is
only one subject of discourse; only one term should therefore be
retained, and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be not
equivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are terms,
and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb.

This observation, however, requires some limitation. It
occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two names,
neither of which singly would express it with sufficient strength.
In such cases, the two nouns _may_ take a verb singular; and if
the noun singular should be in juxta-position with the verb, the
singular number _should_ be used; as “Why _is_ dust and ashes
proud?”--_Ecclesiasticus_, chap. x.

_Note_ 3.--In such expressions as the following, it has been
doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in the
plural number: “Every officer and soldier claim a superiority
in regard to other individuals.”--_De Lolme on the British
Constitution._ Here, I conceive, the phraseology is correct. Such
an expression as “every officer and soldier claims” might signify
one individual under two different designations. Whether we should
say, “Every officer, and every soldier, claim,” is a point more
particularly questioned. We often hear correct speakers say, in
common conversation, “Every clergyman, and every physician, is by
education a gentleman;” and there seems to be more ease, as well as
more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expression. It
is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to analogy to say, “are
gentlemen.”

_Note_ 4.--It is not necessary, that the subjects of discourse
be connected, or associated by conjunctions: it is sufficient,
if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predicate,
whether with or without any connexive word, as “Honour, justice,
religion itself, were derided and blasphemed by these profligate
wretches.”[121] In this example the copulative is omitted. “The
king, with the lords and commons, constitute an excellent form of
government.” Here the connexive word is not a conjunction, but a
preposition; and though _the lords and commons_ be properly in
the objective case, and _the king_ therefore the only nominative
to the verb, yet as the three subjects collectively constitute
the government, the verb without impropriety is put in the plural
number. This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with the
rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and modern
languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable to the
syntactical form of expression.

_Note_ 5.--It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal adjective,
compounded with _self_, is joined to a verb, the simple pronoun,
which is the real nominative, is sometimes understood. “If there
be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:” (_Bible_:) _i.e._ “Do thou
thyself slay me.”

“To know but this, that thou art good,
And that myself am blind:”--_Pope._

that is, “that I myself am blind.”

_Note_ 6.--Where comparison is expressed or implied, and not
combination, the verb should be singular; thus, “Cæsar, as well as
Cicero, _was_ remarkable for eloquence.”

“As she laughed out, until her back,
As well as sides, _was_ like to crack.”--_Hudibras._

_Note_ 7.--When the nominatives are of different persons, the first
person is preferred to the second, and the second to the third. In
other words, _I and you_, _I and he_, are sylleptically the same
as _we_; _you and he_ the same as _ye_. This observation, however,
is scarcely necessary, as the verb plural admits no personal
inflexion: it can be useful only in determining what pronoun should
be the representative of the terms collectively, as, “he and I
shared it between _us_.”

_Note_ 8.--In the learned languages the pronoun of the first person
is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and the second than
that of the third; and hence arises the syllepsis of persons which
obtains in Greek and Latin. But, though we admit the figure in
English, we do not precisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins;
for though, like them, we place the pronoun of the second person
before that of the third, we modestly place the pronoun of the
first person after those of the second and third. Thus, where a
Roman would say, _Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus_,
we should say, “If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well.”

RULE III.--When, of two or more substantives singular, one exclusively is the subject of discourse, a verb singular is required, as, “John, James, or Andrew, intends to accompany you;” that is, one of the three, but not more than one.

_Note._--When the predicate is to be applied to the different
subjects, though they be disjoined by the conjunction, they may
be followed by a plural verb. “Neither you, nor I, are in fault.”
This is the usual form of expression. If we consider _neither_
in its proper character, as a pronoun, we should say, “neither
you nor I, is in fault:” _neither_ being the nominative to the
verb. The former, however, is the common phraseology, and is
analogous to the Latin idiom. “Quando nec gnatus, nec hic, mihi
quicquam obtemperant.”--_Ter. Hec._ “Id neque ego, neque tu,
fecimus.”--_Id._ “Num Lælius, aut qui duxit ab oppressa meritum
Carthagine nomen, ingenio offensi?”--_Hor._

RULE IV.--Nouns of number, or collective nouns, may have a singular or plural verb, thus,

“My people _do_ not consider,”
“My people _does_ not consider.”

This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not entirely
arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea of number, the
verb is preferably made plural; but, if it suggest the idea of a
whole or unity, it should be singular. Thus it seems harsh and
unnatural to say, “In France the peasantry _goes_ barefoot, and
the middle sort _makes_ use of wooden shoes.” It would be better
to say, “the peasantry _go_”--“the middle sort _make_;” because
the idea is that of number. On the contrary, there is something
incongruous and unnatural in these expressions: “The court of Rome
_were_ not without solicitude--The house of commons _were_ of small
weight--Stephen’s party _were_ entirely broken up.”--_Hume._

RULE V.--The adjectives _this_ and _that_ agree with their substantives in number, as,

_This man_ _These men_
_That woman_ _Those women_.

All other adjectives are inflexible, as,

_Good man_ _Good men_.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such expressions as these,
which too frequently occur, “_These_ kind of people.” “_Those_ sort
of goods.”

_Note_ 2.--The substantive, with which the adjective is connected,
is ascertained by putting the question, who, or what? to the
adjective, as, “a ripe apple.” What is ripe? Ans. “The apple.”

_Note_ 3.--The inflexibility of the English adjective sometimes
occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of two or
more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is sometimes
supplied by the note termed _hyphen_. If, for example, we hear a
person designated “an old bookseller,” we may be at a loss to know,
whether the person intended be an old man who sells books, that
is, “an old book-seller,” or one who sells old books, that is, “an
old-book seller.” When we read the notice, “Lime, slate, and coal
wharf,” we are indebted to the exercise of common sense, and not
to the perspicuity of the diction, for understanding what is meant
by attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in
strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a different
signification.

_Note_ 4.--Every adjective has a substantive, either expressed or
understood, as “the just shall live by faith,” _i.e._ “the just
man;” “few were present,” _i.e._ “few persons.”

_Note_ 5.--The adjective is generally placed immediately before the
substantive, as, “a learned man,” “a chaste woman.”

_Exc._ 1.--When the adjective is closely connected with some other
word, by which its meaning is modified or explained, as, “a man
loyal to his prince,” where the attributive _loyal_ is closely
connected with the following words.

_Exc._ 2.--When the verb _to be_ expresses simple affirmation, as,
“thou art good;” or when any other verb serves as a mere copula to
unite the predicate with its subject, as, “he seems courageous,”
“it looks strange.”

_Exc._ 3.--For the sake of harmony, as, “Hail! bard divine.”

_Exc._ 4.--When there are more adjectives than one connected with
the substantive, as, “a man wise, valiant, and good.”

_Exc._ 5.--Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or of time,
are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, “a wall ten
feet high,” “a child three years old,” “a speech an hour long.”

_Note_ 6.--It has been doubted whether the cardinal should precede
or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in one of his
letters to Pope, “Not but that the four first lines are good.” We
conceive the expression to be quite correct, though the other form,
namely, “the first four,” be often employed to denote the same
conception. There is no contrast intended between these four and
any other four, otherwise he should have said, “The first four.” If
we say, “the first seven years,” it implies a division into sevens,
as takes place, for example, in the terms of a lease; “the seven
first years” implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have
observed, had only one mode of arrangement. “Itaque quinque primis
diebus.”--_Cæs._ _B. C._ i. 5. “Tribus primis diebus.”--_Ib._ i.
18. That the adoption of one and the same collocation, in all
cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, is evident. If we take,
for example, seven objects, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and say “the
first, and the three last,” we clearly refer to A, and E, F, G; but
if we say “the first and the last three,” we may indicate A, B, C,
the first three, and E, F, G, the last three.

_Note_ 7.--_Each_ is employed to denote two things taken
separately, and is therefore used as singular[122]. _Either_ is
also singular, and implies only one of two; as, _take either_,
that is “the one or the other, but not both.” _Both_ is a plural
adjective, and denotes the two collectively.

_Note_ 8.--_Every_ is an adjective singular, applied to more than
two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them all. It is
sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the things are conceived
as forming one aggregate, as, _every twelve years_, _i.e._ “every
period of twelve years.”

_Note_ 9.--_All_ is an adjective either singular or plural,
denoting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, “All men are
mortal.” “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.”

_Note_ 10.--_Much_ is an adjective of quantity, and of the singular
number, as, “much fruit.” _Many_ an adjective of number, and
therefore plural, as, “many men.” This word, however, is sometimes
construed with a noun singular, as,

“Many a poor man’s son would have lain still.”--_Shakspeare._

_Note_ 11.--_More_, as the comparative of _much_, is singular,
denoting a greater quantity; as the comparative of _many_, it is
plural, and signifies a greater number, as _more fruit_, or, “a
greater quantity;” _more men_, “or a greater number.”

_Note_ 12.--_Enough_ is an adjective singular, and denotes
quantity, as, “bread enough:” _enow_ denotes number, as “books
enow.”

_Note_ 13.--The correlative word to the adjective _such_, is _as_,
and not _who_. There is an impropriety in saying, with Mr. Addison,
“Such, who are lovers of mankind,” instead of “Such as,” or, “Those
who.”

_Note_ 14.--The superlative degree is followed by _of_, and also
the comparative, when selection is implied, as, “Hector was the
bravest of the Trojans.” “Africanus was the greater of the (two)
Scipios.” When opposition is signified, the comparative is followed
by _than_, as, “Wisdom is better than wealth.”

_Note_ 15.--There is an ambiguity in the adjective _no_, against
which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley seems to think
that it is impossible to avoid in any language. Thus, if we say,
“No laws are better than the English,” it may mean either, that the
absence of all law is better than the English laws, or that no code
of jurisprudence is superior to the English. If the latter be the
meaning intended, the ambiguity is removed by saying, “There are no
laws better than the English.” If the former is the sentiment to be
expressed, we might say, “The absence of all law is preferable to
the English system.”

_Note_ 16.--Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for adverbs,
as _indifferent well_, _extreme bad_, for _indifferently well_,
_extremely bad_. An example of this error is also found in
the following sentence. “He was interrogated relative to that
circumstance.” _Relative_ is an adjective, and must have a
substantive expressed or understood; the question is then, what,
or who was relative? The answer, according to the rules of
construction, should be _he_. This, however, is not the meaning.
The word ought to be _relatively_.

I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our grammarians have
been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, in condemning
such expressions as these, _exceeding great_, _exceeding strong_.
This phraseology, I apprehend, has been reprobated, partly because
not conformable to the Latin idiom, and partly because such
expressions as these, _excessive good_, _extreme dear_, _excellent
well_, are justly repudiated. Neither of these, however, can be
deemed a sufficient reason for condemning this phraseology. For
when it is said, “His strength was exceeding great,” may not the
expression be considered as elliptical, the word _exceeding_ being
construed as a participle, thus, “his strength was exceeding,” or
“surpassing great strength,” that is, “his strength exceeded great
strength.”[123] So Shakspeare says, “it was passing strange.”
Though _exceedingly strong_, _exceedingly good_, are now considered
to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be no doubt, as
Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes used to modify
the sense of other adjectives; thus we say, “red hot,” “a closer
grained wood,” “a sharper edged sword.”

In connection with the preceding note, we would here observe, that
adjectives are used to modify the meaning of the verbs to which
they refer; thus we say, “Open thy hand wide.”--_Bible._ “Cry
shrill with thy voice.”--_Ib._ “He fought hard for his life.” The
use of the kindred adverbs, as will be afterwards shown, would in
many instances materially alter the meaning.

RULE VI.--The article _a_ or _an_ is joined to nouns of the singular number only, or nouns denoting a plurality of things in one aggregate, as,

_A man_ _An army_ _A thousand_ _A few_.

_Note_ 1.--To distinguish between the use of _a_ and _an_, it
is usually given as a general rule that _a_ be placed before
consonants and _h_ aspirated, and _an_ before vowels and _h_ not
aspirated, as _a table_, _a hat_, _an oak_, _an heir_. In respect
to _a_ before _h_ aspirated, it must be observed, that usage is
divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was translated, and
the Liturgy composed, _an_ was almost universally used before _h_,
whether the aspirate belonged to an emphatic or an unemphatic
syllable. A change has since taken place; and some give it as a
rule, to put _a_ before _h_, when the syllable is emphatic, and
_an_ when the syllable has not the emphasis. This rule, however,
is not universally observed; some writing “a history,” others “an
history;” some writing “a hypothesis,” others “an hypothesis.” As
far as easy pronunciation is concerned, or the practice of Greek
and Roman writers may furnish a precedent, there seems to be no
solid objection to either of these modes. The former is more common
in Scotch and Irish writers than it is in English authors, with
whom the aspiration is less forcible, and less common.

_An_ is used before a vowel; but from this rule two deviations are
admitted. Before the simple sound of _u_, followed by another vowel
sound, whether signified or not, _a_ and not _an_ is used. Thus
we say, “such _a_ one,” “such a woman.” If the sound of “one” be
analyzed, we shall find it resolvable into _oo-un_ or _won_, as
some orthoepists have expressed it; and _woman_ into _oo-umman_.
Again, before the diphthongal sound of _eu_, in whatsoever manner
that sound may be noted, _a_ may be, and frequently is, used. Thus
we say, “a youth,” “a yeoman,” “a eunuch,” “a unicorn.” Sheridan,
indeed, contends, that all words beginning with _u_, when it has
the diphthongal sound of _eu_, should be preceded by _a_ and not
_an_. And here I must remark, that it is with no common surprise, I
find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, denying that
the vowel _u_ is anywhere equivalent to _eu_ or _e-oo_. Who those
public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in England, and to
whose authority he appeals, we are utterly at a loss to conjecture.
But this we confidently affirm, that there is no orthoepist, no
public orator, nay, not an individual in any rank of society,
who does not distinguish between the sound of _u_ in _brute_,
_rude_, _intrude_, and in _cube_, _fume_, _cure_. His reference
to Johnson, who says that _u_ is long in _confusion_, and short
in _discussion_, is irrelevant and nugatory. Dr. Webster surely
has not to learn, that the vowel may be long, whether the sound be
monophthongal, or diphthongal. It is strange, too, that in the very
example which he quotes from Johnson, the _u_ has the diphthongal
sound, which he, notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing.

_Note_ 2.--_A_ is employed to express one individual of a species
without determining who or which; _the_ denotes some particular
individual or individuals; thus, “a book” means any book, “the
book” some particular book; and when both articles are omitted
the whole class is signified, as, “Man is born unto trouble,”
_i.e._ “all men.” Hobbes errs against this rule when he says, “God
Almighty has given reason to _a_ man, to be a light to him.” The
article should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error when he
writes,

“Who breaks a butterfly upon _a_ wheel.”

It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known
instrument of torture, or “the wheel.”

The article _a_ serves to distinguish between two subjects
compared with each other, and two subjects compared with a third.
“He is the author of two works of a different character.” If
the writer meant to say that he was the author of two works of
a different character from that of one previously mentioned,
the expression would be correct. But he intended to signify a
dissimilarity between the two productions. He should, therefore,
have omitted the article, and said, “of different character,” or
“of different characters.”

_Note_ 3.--The indefinite article, though generally placed before
the adjective, as, “a good man,” is put after the adjective _such_;
and where these words of comparison occur, _as_, _so_, _too_,
_how_, its place is between the adjective and substantive, thus,
“Such a gift is too small a reward for so great a service.” When
the order is inverted, this rule is not observed, as “a reward so
small,” “a service so great.” The definite article is likewise
placed before the adjective, as “the great king.” _All_ is the only
adjective which precedes the article. “All the servants,” “all the
money.”

_Note_ 4.--Pronouns and proper names do not admit the definite
article, themselves sufficiently determining the subject of
discourse; thus we cannot say, _the I_, _the Alexander_. If we
employ the definite article with a proper name, an ellipsis is
involved; thus, if I say, _he commands the Cæsar_, I mean, he
commands the ship called “Cæsar.”

_Note_ 5.--The definite article is used to distinguish the
explicative from the determinative sense. The omission of the
article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For this
reason the following sentence is faulty: “All words, which are
signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”--_Bolingbroke._
Here the clause, “which are signs of complex ideas,” is not
explicative, but restrictive; for all words are not signs of
complex ideas. It should, therefore, be “all the,” or “all those
words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”

“In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges
is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to
decide against incorporeal rights, which for many years have been
relinquished.”--_Erskine on the Rights of Juries._ This sentence
is chargeable at once with ambiguity and error. In the first
place, it is doubtful whether a regard to this analogy governs
the directions of the judge, or is to rule the decision of the
jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the definite article, or the word
_those_ before the antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause
explicative, instead of being restrictive; for, as all incorporeal
rights are not abolished, he should have said, “against those
incorporeal rights.”

There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent clause
admits the definite article, though the relative clause be not
restrictive, thus,

“Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean
From the defiling power of sin.”

Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the antecedent
admits the article. Thus also, in the following sentence, “My
goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, and the
excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” The relative clause
is not intended to limit the meaning of the antecedent terms, and
yet they admit the definite article. In all examples, therefore,
like these, where the explanatory meaning admits the article, it is
necessary, for the sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative
sense by the emphatic words _that_ or _those_. Thus, had the clause
been determinative in the latter of these examples, it would have
been necessary to say, “those saints, and those excellent ones, in
whom is my delight.”

_Note_ 6.--The definite article is likewise used to distinguish
between things which are individually different, but have one
generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and the same,
but are characterized by several qualities. For example, if I
should say, “the red and blue vestments were most admired,” it
may be doubtful whether I mean that the union of red and blue in
the same vestments was most admired, or that the red and the blue
vestments were both more admired than the rest. In strictness of
speech, the former is the only proper meaning of the words, though
the latter sentiment be often thus expressed. If the latter be
intended, we should say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the
red and the blue vestments,” where the article is repeated. If
I say, “the red and blue vestments,” it is obvious that only one
subject is expressed, namely, “vestments,” characterized by two
qualities, “redness,” and “blueness,” as combined in the subject.
Here the subject is one; its qualities are plural. If I say, “the
red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,”
the subjects are plural, expressed, however, by one generic name,
_vestments_.

In the same manner, if we say, “the ecclesiastical and secular
powers concurred in this measure,” the expression is ambiguous,
as far as language can render it such. The reader’s knowledge,
as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent his mistaking it; but, if
such modes of expression be admitted, where the sense is clear,
they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, where the meaning
would be obscure, if not entirely misunderstood. The error might
have been avoided, either by repeating the substantive, or by
subjoining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing
the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the substantives
after both adjectives, the article being prefixed in the same
manner; thus, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers,”
or better, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular,” or “the
ecclesiastical, and the secular powers.” The repetition of the
article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional
epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally
different, though expressed by the same generic name. “The lords
spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable on the
same principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we
dare hardly question its propriety. The subjects are different,
though they have but one generic name. It should therefore be, “the
spiritual and the temporal lords.”

On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as epithets to
one and the same thing, the other arrangement is to be preferred.
Thus, “the high and mighty states.” Here both epithets belong to
one subject. “The states high and mighty,” would convey the same
idea.

Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive
ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same thing,
or to different things having the same generic name. “Like an
householder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new and old.”
This arrangement is faulty; both epithets cannot belong to the same
subject. It should be, “new things and old.”

If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the
substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to follow
both, the article being uniformly omitted before the second
adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before the first,
or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to different
subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought to follow the
first adjective, and may be either repeated after the second, or
understood; or it should follow both adjectives, the article being
prefixed to each of them.

_Note_ 7.--The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite
article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus,

“Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud.”--_Thomson._

Here _little_ is equivalent to “not much,” or rather by a common
trope it denotes _not at all_. Locke says, “I leave him to
reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found in
him by any one, who reads with but a little attention.” Here, on
the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, “a little”
means “not none,” or “some.”

In like manner, when it is said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow
is the way, and few there be that find it;” _few_ is opposed to
_many_. Thus also, “_Many_ are called, but _few_ are chosen.”
But when it is said, “Tarry a few days, till thy brother’s fury
turn;” _a few_ is here equivalent to _some_, not as opposed to
_many_, but as opposed to _not none_. If we say, “_few_ accompanied
the prince,” we seem to diminish the number, and represent it
as inconsiderable, as if we said, “not many,” or “fewer than
expectation:” if we say, _a few_, we seem to amplify;--we represent
the number as not unworthy of attention, or as equal, at least, if
not superior to expectation. In short, if the article be inserted,
the clause is equivalent to a double negative, and thus it serves
to amplify; if the article be suppressed, the expression has either
a diminutive or a negative import.

_Note_ 8.--The indefinite article has, sometimes, the meaning of
_every_ or _each_; thus, “they cost five shillings a dozen,” that
is, “every dozen.”

“What makes all doctrines plain and clear?
About two hundred pounds a year.”--_Hudibras._

That is, “every year.”

_Note_ 9.--There is a particular use of this article, which merits
attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be avoided. In
denoting comparison, when the article is suppressed before the
second term, the latter, though it may be an appellative, assumes
the character of an attributive, and becomes the predicate of the
subject, or first term. If, on the contrary, the second term be
prefaced with the article, it continues an appellative, and forms
the other subject of comparison. In the former case, the subject,
as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is compared
with itself; in the latter, it is compared with something else.

Thus, if we say, “he is a better soldier than scholar,” the article
is suppressed before the second term, and the expression is
equivalent to, “he is more warlike than learned,” or “he possesses
the qualities, which form the soldier, in a greater degree than
those, which constitute the scholar.” If, we say, “he would make
a better soldier, than _a_ scholar,” here the article is prefixed
to the second term; this term, therefore, retains the character
of an appellative, and forms the second subject of comparison.
The meaning accordingly is, “he would make a better soldier, than
a scholar would make;” that is, “he has more of the constituent
qualities of a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man.”

Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to
Atterbury, he says, “You thought me not a worse man than a poet.”
This strictly means “a worse man than a poet is;” whereas he
intended to say, that his moral qualities were not inferior to his
poetical genius. He should have said, “a worse man than poet.”

These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which seldom
fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously considers them as
equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article is omitted
before the second substantive. When there are two subjects with one
predicate, the article should be inserted; but when there is one
subject with two predicates, it should be omitted.

_Note_ 10.--Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when an
additional epithet or description of the same subject is intended,
the definite article should not be employed. It is by an attention
to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between subject and
predicate. For this reason the following sentence appears to me
faulty: “The apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and the brother of
St. John, would be declared the apostle of the Britons.”--_Henry’s
History of Britain._ It should be rather, “and brother of St.
John.” When a diversity of persons, or a change of subject is
intended to be expressed, the definite article is necessarily
employed, as “Cincinnatus the dictator, and the master of horse,
marched against the Æqui.” The definite article before the latter
appellative marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that
two persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression
would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, were one
and the same individual.

RULE VII.--Substantives signifying the same thing agree in case, thus, “I, George the Third, king of Great Britain, defender of the faith.” The words _I_, _George_, _king_, _defender_, are all considered as the nominative case. “The chief of the princes, _he_ who defied the bravest of the enemy, was assassinated by a dastardly villain:” where the pronoun _he_ agrees in case with the preceding term _chief_. This rule, however, may be deemed unnecessary, as all such expressions are elliptical; thus, “the chief of the princes was assassinated,” “he was assassinated.” “He was the son of the Rev. Dr. West, perhaps _him_ who published Pindar at Oxford.”--_Johnson’s Life of West._ That is, “the son of him.” Were the pronoun in the nominative case, it would refer to the son, and not the father, and thus convey a very different meaning.

_Note_ 1.--As proper names are, by the trope antonomasia,
frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, “the Socrates of
the present age,” where _Socrates_ is equivalent to “the wisest
man,” so also appellatives have frequently the meaning and force of
attributives. Thus, if we say, “he is a soldier,” it means either
that he is by profession a soldier, or that he possesses all the
qualities of a military man, whether professionally a soldier or
not. According to the former acceptation of the term, it is a
mere appellative; agreeably to the latter, it has the force of an
attributive.

_Note_ 2.--Two or more substantives in concordance, and forming
one complex name, or a name and title, have the plural termination
annexed to the last only, as, “_the two Miss Louisa Howards_,
_the two Miss Thomsons_.” Analogy, Dr. Priestley observes, would
plead in favour of another construction, and lead us to say, _the
two Misses Thomson_, _the two Misses Louisa Howard_; for if the
ellipsis were supplied, we should say, “the two young ladies of the
name of Thomson,” and this construction he adds, he has somewhere
met with.

The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally occurs;
but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, analogy
likewise, decide in favour of the former; for, with a few
exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now given[124],
we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflexion to
the last substantive. Some proofs of this we shall afterwards have
an opportunity of offering. I would also observe, in passing,
that ellipsis and analogy are different principles, and should be
carefully distinguished.

RULE VIII.--One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the genitive, as,

The tyrant’s rage. The apostle’s feet.

_Note_ 1.--This rule takes place when property, possession, or the
general relation, by which one thing appertains to another, is
implied.

_Note_ 2.--It may be considered as violated in such examples as
these, “Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime.”--_Addison._ “Christ
his sake.”--_Common Prayer._

_Note_ 3.--Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise
pronouns, as, “its strength,” “his reward.”

_Note_ 4.--This case is generally resolvable into the objective
with the preposition _of_, as, “the king’s sceptre,” or “the
sceptre of the king;” “his head,” or “the head of him.” I have said
_generally_, for it is not _always_ thus resolvable. For example,
the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, “the Lord’s day;” but
“the day of the Lord” conveys a different idea, and denotes “the
day of judgment.”

_Note_ 5.--The latter or governing substantive is frequently
understood, as, “the king will come to St. James’s to-morrow,” that
is, “St. James’s palace.” “I found him at the stationer’s,” that
is, “the stationer’s shop,” or “the stationer’s house.”

_Note_ 6.--When a single subject is expressed as the common
property of two or more persons, the last only takes the sign of
the genitive, as, “this is John, William, and Richard’s house;”
that is, “this is the house of John, William, and Richard.”
But when several subjects are implied, as severally belonging
to various individuals, the names of the individuals are all
expressed in the genitive case, as “these are John’s, William’s,
and Richard’s houses.” In such examples as these, the use of the
genitive involves an ambiguity, which it is sometimes difficult
to prevent. Thus, if we say, agreeably to the first observation
in this note, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s posterity were carried
captive to Babylon,” one unacquainted with the history of these
patriarchs, might be at a loss to determine whether “the patriarch
Abraham,” “the patriarch Isaac,” and “the posterity of Jacob,”
were carried captive; in other words, whether there be three
subjects of discourse, namely, _Abraham_, _Isaac_, and _the
posterity of Jacob_, or only one subject, _the posterity of the
patriarchs_. Nor will the insertion of the preposition in all
cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example before us, were
the word “descendants” substituted for “posterity,” and the phrase
to proceed thus, “the descendants of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob,” an ignorant reader might be led to suppose that not one
generation of descendants, but three distinct generations of these
three individuals were carried into captivity. If we say, “the
posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the expression appears to
me liable to the same misconstruction with the one first mentioned.
If we say, “the common posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
were carried captive to Babylon,” all ambiguity of expression is
prevented.

Instead also of saying, “John, William, and Richard’s house,”
I should prefer “a house belonging in common to John, William,
and Richard.” This expression, though laborious and heavy, is
preferable to the inelegance and harshness of three inflected
substantives, while it removes the ambiguity, which might in some
cases be occasioned by withholding the inflexion from the two first
substantives. Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be
combined, it will not be questioned which we ought to prefer. I
observe, also, that though such phraseologies as this, “John’s,
William’s, and Richard’s houses,” be perfectly consonant with
syntactical propriety, and strictly analogous to the established
phraseology, “his, Richard’s, and my houses,” yet, as there appears
something uncouth in the former expression, it would be better to
say, “the houses belonging in common, or severally (as the meaning
may be) to John, William, and Richard.”

_Note_ 7.--When a name is complex, that is, consisting of more
terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the genitive, as,
“Julius Cæsar’s Commentaries,” “John the Baptist’s head,” “for
Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.”

_Note_ 8.--When a short explanatory term is subjoined to a name,
it matters little to which the inflexion be annexed, as, “I left
the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the bookseller’s,” or “at Mr. Johnson’s,
the bookseller.” But if the explanatory term be complex, or if
there are more explanatory terms than one, the sign of the genitive
must be affixed to the name, or first substantive, thus, “I left
the book at Johnson’s, a respectable bookseller, a worthy man,
and an old friend.” In the same manner we should say, “this psalm
is David’s, the king, priest, and prophet of the people,” and
not “this psalm is David, the king, priest, and prophet of the
people’s.”

_Note_ 9.--In some cases we employ both the genitive and a
preposition, as “this is a friend of the king’s,” elliptically, for
“this is a friend of the king’s friends.” We say also, “this is a
friend of the king.” These forms of expression, however, though
in many cases equivalent, sometimes imply different ideas. Thus,
if I say, “this is a picture of my friend,” it means, “this is an
image, likeness, or representation of my friend.” If I say, “This
is a picture of my friend’s,” it means, “this picture belongs to my
friend.”

As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies part of
a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think the use of it
should be avoided, unless in cases where this plurality may be
implied. Thus we may say, “a kinsman of the traitor’s waited on
him yesterday,” it being implied that the traitor had several or
many kinsmen. The expression is equivalent to “a kinsman of the
traitor’s kinsmen.” But, if the subject possessed were singular, or
the only one of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple
genitive; thus, if he had only one house, I should say, “this is
the house of the traitor,” or “this is the traitor’s house;” but
not “this is a house of the traitor’s.”

_Note_ 10.--The recurrence of the analytical expression, and
likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully avoided.
Thus, there is something inelegant and offensive in the following
sentence, “the severity of the distress of the son of the king
touched the nation.” Much better, “the severe distress of the
king’s son touched the nation.”

_Note_ 11.--There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or uncouthness,
in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in “the army’s name,” “the
commons’ vote,” “the lords’ house,” expressions of Mr. Hume, there
is a manifest want of dignity and of elegance. Much better, “the
name of the army,” “the vote of the commons,” “the house of lords.”

RULE IX.--Pronouns agree with their antecedents, or the nouns which they represent, in gender, number, and person, as, “They respected Cato and his party,” where _Cato_ is singular and masculine, and _his_ agrees with it in gender and number. “He addressed you and me, and desired _us_ to follow him,” where _us_ sylleptically represents the two persons. “Thou, who writest.” Here the antecedent _thou_ being a person, the relative _who_, not _which_, is employed. The antecedent also being of the second person and singular number, the relative is considered as of the same character, and is therefore followed by the verb in the second person and singular number. “Vice, which no man practises with impunity, proved his destruction.” Here the antecedent _vice_ not being a person, the pronoun _which_, of the neuter gender, is therefore employed. “The rivers, which flow into the sea.” Here also the antecedent not being a person, the relative is _which_. It is also considered as in the plural number; and, as all substantives are joined to the third person, _which_, the representative of _rivers_, is joined to the third person plural of the verb.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is transgressed in the following examples:
“Beware of false prophets, _which_ come to you in sheep’s
clothing.” “The fruit tree bearing fruit after _his_ kind.” “There
was indeed in our destinies such a conformity, as seldom is found
in _that_ of two persons in the same age.” Here that, referring
to _destinies_, is put for _those_. “The crown had it in _their_
power to give such rewards as they thought proper.”--_Parliamentary
Debates._

_Note_ 2.--The relative should be placed as near as possible to the
antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is sometimes occasioned.

_Note_ 3.--In the earlier editions of Murray’s Grammar, we find the
following rule: “When the relative is preceded by two nominatives
of different persons, it may agree in person with either, as, ‘I
am the man who commands you,’ or ‘I am the man who command you.’”
The rule here given is erroneous. The construction is by no means
arbitrary. If we say, “I am the man who commands you,” the relative
clause, with the antecedent _man_, form the predicate; and the
sentence is equivalent to “I am your commander.” If we say, “I am
the man who command you,” _the man_ simply is the predicate, and
_I who command you_ the subject; thus, “I who command you,” or “I
your commander am the man.” This error, sufficiently obvious to
every discerning reader, I pointed out in the former edition of
this Treatise. Murray’s rule, as it stood, is clearly repugnant to
perspicuity, and syntactical correctness.

In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, in every
edition posterior to the publication of the “Etymology and Syntax,”
the rule is altered; but whether from a disinclination to expunge
a rule, which he had once delivered--a disinclination perhaps
accompanied with a belief, that it might be corrected with little
prejudice to its original form, or from what other motive he has
left it in its present state, I will not presume to determine;
but in the alteration, which he has introduced, he appears to me
to have consulted neither usefulness nor perspicuity. He says,
“When the relative is preceded by two nominatives of different
persons, it _may_ agree in person with either.” So far he has
transcribed the former rule; but he adds, “according to the
sense.” Now it cannot be questioned, and the learner needs not to
be informed, that the relative _may_ agree with either. If after
having taught the learner, that a Latin adjective _must_ agree
with its substantive, we were to add, as a distinct rule, that it
_may_ agree with either of the two substantives, according to the
sense, I apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain repetition,
or with extreme inattention to correctness and precision. For what
would our rule imply? Clearly nothing more, than that the adjective
is capable of agreeing with the substantive to which it belongs;
and of this capacity no scholar, who had learned to decline an
adjective, could possibly be ignorant; or it might convey some
idea, that the concord is optional. Now, is it not certain, that
the adjective must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that
whose meaning it is intended to modify, and no other? The relative,
in like manner, _must_ agree with that antecedent, and that only,
whose representative it is in the relative clause. There is nothing
arbitrary in either the one case, or the other.

Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former part of the
altered rule leaves the concord as it first stood, discretionary,
the latter confines the agreement of the relative to its proper
antecedent. But why this apparent contrariety? Why is that
represented as arbitrary, which is determined by the sense? This,
however, is not the only objection; for it may be affirmed,
without hesitation, that the rule, thus considered, is completely
superfluous. For the learner has been already told, that the
relative agrees with the antecedent in gender, number, and person.
And can the antecedent be any other, than that which the sense
indicates? And what does this rule teach? Precisely the same
thing. The rule, therefore, is either calculated to mislead by
representing as arbitrary what is fixed and determinate, or it is
purely a rule of supererogation. As it stood originally, it gave
some new information; but that information was erroneous: as it
stands now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless.

The scholar may require an admonition, when there are two
antecedents of different persons, to be careful in referring
the relative to its proper antecedent; but to tell him that it
may agree with the one, or the other, according to the sense,
is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, which he already
knows. In the examples just now adduced, the termination of the
verb, by indicating the person of the relative, clearly shows
the antecedent; but, where the substantives are of the same
person, and the verb cannot therefore by its termination indicate
the antecedent, ambiguity should be precluded by the mode of
arrangement. Thus, “He is the hero who did it,” and “He who did it
is the hero.” In the former, _he_ is the subject, and the _hero who
did it_ the predicate; and in the latter, _he who did it_ is the
subject, and the _hero_ the predicate.

_Note_ 4.--The relative, instead of referring to any particular
word as its antecedent, sometimes refers to a whole clause, thus,
“the bill was rejected by the lords, which excited no small degree
of jealousy and discontent,” that is, “which thing,” namely, the
rejection of the bill.

_Note_ 5.--The antecedent pronoun of the third person is often
suppressed, when no particular emphasis is implied; as, “Who
steals my purse, steals trash,” _i.e._ “he,” or “the man, who.”
“Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive,” _Bible_;
_i.e._ “Those whom he would.” “Whosoever committeth sin, is
the servant of sin.” In this example the antecedent _he_, and
nominative to the principal verb, is understood.