Chapter VI: Verbs (3)

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

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

OBS. 23.--In Blanchard's small Arithmetic, published in 1854, the following inculcations occur: "When we say, 3 times 4 trees are 12 trees, we have reference to the _objects_ counted; but in saying 3 times 4 _is_ twelve, we mean, that 3 times the _number_ 4, _is the number_ 12. Here we use 4 and 12, not as numeral _adjectives_, but as _nouns_, the _names_ of particular _numbers_, and as such, each conveys the idea of _unity_, and _the entire expression_ is the subject of _is_, and conveys the _idea of unity_."--P. iv. Here we have, with an additional error concerning "the entire expression," a repetition of Dr. Bullions's erroneous assumption, that the name of a particular number, as being "a singular noun," must "convey the idea of unity," though the number itself be a distinct plurality. These men talk as if there were an absurdity in affirming that "the number 4" is _plural_! But, if _four_ be taken as only one thing, how can _three_ multiply this one thing into _twelve_? It is by no means proper to affirm, that, "_Every_ four, taken three times, _is_, or _are_, twelve;" for three instances, or "_times_," of the _figure_ 4, or of the _word four_, are only three 4's, or three verbal _fours_. And is it not _because_ "_the number_ 4" _is plural--is in itself four units_--and because the word _four_, or the figure 4, conveys explicitly the _idea of this plurality_, that the multiplication table is true, where it says, "3 times 4 _are_ 12?" It is not right to say, "Three times one quaternion is twelve;" nor is it quite unobjectionable to say, with Blanchard "3 _times the number_ 4, _is the number_ 12." Besides, this pretended interpretation explains nothing. The syntax of the shorter text, "3 times 4 _is_ 12," is in no way justified or illustrated by it. Who does not perceive that _the four_ here spoken of must be four _units_, or four _things_ of some sort; and that no _such_ "four," multiplied by 3, or _till_ "3 _times_," can "convey the idea of unity," or match a singular verb? Dr. Webster did not so conceive of this "abstract number," or of "the entire expression" in which it is multiplied; for he says, "Four times four _amount_ to sixteen."--_American Dict., w. Time._

OBS. 24.--In fact no phrase of multiplication is of such a nature that it can, with any plausibility be reckoned a composite subject of the verb. _Once, twice_, and _thrice_, are adverbs; and each of them may, in general, be parsed as relating directly to the multiplicand. Their construction, as well as that of the plural verb, is agreeable to the Latin norm; as, when Cicero says of somebody, "Si, _bis bina_ quot _essent_, didicisset,"--"If he had learned how many _twice two are_."--See _Ainsworth's Dict., w. Binus._ The phrases, "_one time_," for _once_, and "_two times_" for _twice_, seem puerile expressions: they are not often used by competent teachers. _Thrice_ is a good word, but more elegant than popular. Above _twice_, we use the phrases, _three times, four times_, and the like, which are severally composed of a numeral adjective and the noun _times_. If these words were united, as some think they ought to be, the compounds would be _adverbs_ of _time repeated_; as, _threetimes, fourtimes_, &c., analogous to _sometimes_. Each word would answer, as each phrase now does, to the question, _How often?_ These expressions are taken by some as having a direct adverbial relation to the terms which they qualify; but they are perhaps most commonly explained as being dependent on some preposition understood. See Obs. 1st on Rule 5th, and Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.

OBS. 25.--In multiplying one only, it is evidently best to use a singular verb: as, "Twice _naught_ is naught;"--"Three times _one is_ three." And, in multiplying any number above _one_, I judge a plural verb to be necessary: as, "Twice _two are_ four;"--"Three times _two are six_;" because this number must be just _so many_ in order to give the product. Dr. Bullions says, "We should say, 'Three times two _is_ six,' because the meaning is, 'Two _taken_ three times _is_ six.'" This is neither reasoning, nor explanation, nor good grammar. The relation between "_two_" and "_three_," or the syntax of the word "_times_," or the propriety of the _singular verb_, is no more apparent in the latter expression than in the former. It would be better logic to affirm, "We should say, 'Three times two _are_ six;' because the meaning is, 'Two (_units_), taken _for, to_, or _till_ three times, are six.'" The preposition _till_, or _until_, is sometimes found in use before an expression of _times numbered_; as, "How oft shall I forgive? _till_ seven times? I say not unto thee, _Until_ seven times; but, _Until_ seventy times seven."--_Matt._, xviii, 21. But here is still a difficulty with repect to the _multiplying_ term, or the word "_times_." For, unless, by an unallowable ellipsis, "_seventy times seven_," is presumed to mean, "seventy times _of_ seven," the preposition _Until_ must govern, not this noun "_times._" expressed, but an other, understood after "_seven_;" and the meaning must be, "Thou shalt forgive him until _seventy-times_ seven times;" or--"until seven _times taken for, to_, or _till_, seventy times."

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

NOTE TO RULE XV.

A collective noun conveying the idea of unity, requires a verb in the third person, singular; and generally admits also the regular plural construction: as, "His _army was_ defeated."--"His _armies were_ defeated."

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XV.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.--THE IDEA OF PLURALITY.

"The gentry is punctilious in their etiquette."

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

"In France the peasantry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes."--HARVEY: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 188. "The people rejoices in that which should cause sorrow."--See _Murray's Exercises_, p. 49. "My people is foolish, they have not known me."--_Jer._, iv, 22; _Lowth's Gram._, p. 75. "For the people speaks, but does not write."--_Philological Museum_, i, 646. "So that all the people that was in the camp, trembled."--_Exodus_, xix, 16. "No company likes to confess that they are ignorant."--_Student's Manual_, p. 217. "Far the greater part of their captives was anciently sacrificed."--_Robertson's America_, i, 339. "Above one half of them was cut off before the return of spring."--_Ib._, ii, 419. "The other class, termed Figures of Thought, supposes the words to be used in their proper and literal meaning."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 133; _Murray's Gram._, 337. "A multitude of words in their dialect approaches to the Teutonic form, and therefore afford excellent assistance."--_Dr. Murray's Hist of Lang._, i, 148. "A great majority of our authors is defective in manner."--_James Brown's Crit._ "The greater part of these new-coined words has been rejected."--_Tooke's Diversions_, ii, 445. "The greater part of the words it contains is subject to certain modifications and inflections."--_The Friend_, ii, 123. "While all our youth prefers her to the rest."--_Waller's Poems_, p. 17. "Mankind is appointed to live in a future state."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 57. "The greater part of human kind speaks and acts wholly by imitation."--_Wright's Gram._, p. 169. "The greatest part of human gratifications approaches so nearly to vice."--_Ibid._

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

UNDER THE NOTE.--THE IDEA OF UNITY.

"In old English this species of words were numerous."--_Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang._, ii, 6. "And a series of exercises in false grammar are introduced towards the end."--_Frost's El. of E. Gram._, p. iv. "And a jury, in conformity with the same idea, were anciently called _homagium_, the homage, or manhood."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 296. "With respect to the former, there are indeed plenty of means."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 319. "The number of school districts have increased since the last year."--_Governor Throop_, 1832. "The Yearly Meeting have purchased with its funds these publications."--_Foster's Reports_, i, 76. "Have the legislature power to prohibit assemblies?"--_Wm. Sullivan_. "So that the whole number of the streets were fifty."--_Rollin's Ancient Hist._, ii, 8. "The number of inhabitants were not more than four millions."--SMOLLETT: see _Priestley's Gram._, p. 193. "The House of Commons were of small weight."--HUME: _Ib._, p. 188. "The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me."--_Psal._ xxii, 16; _Lowth's Gram._, p. 75. "Every kind of convenience and comfort are provided."--_Com. School Journal_, i, 24. "Amidst the great decrease of the inhabitants of Spain, the body of the clergy have suffered no diminution; but has rather been gradually increasing."--_Payne's Geog._, ii, 418. "Small as the number of inhabitants are, yet their poverty is extreme."--_Ib._, ii, 417. "The number of the names were about one hundred and twenty."--_Ware's Gram._, p. 12; see _Acts_, i, 15.

RULE XVI.--FINITE VERBS.

When a Verb has two or more nominatives connected by _and_, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together: as, "True rhetoric _and_ sound logic _are_ very nearly allied."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 11. "Aggression and injury in no case _justify_ retaliation."--_Wayland's Moral Science_, p. 406.

"Judges and senates _have been bought_ for gold,
Esteem _and_ love _were_ never to be sold."--_Pope_.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

When two nominatives connected by _and_ serve merely to describe one person or thing, they are either in apposition or equivalent to one name, and do not require a plural verb; as, "Immediately _comes a hue and cry_ after a gang of thieves."--_L'Estrange_. "The _hue and cry_ of the country _pursues_ him."--_Junius_, Letter xxiii. "Flesh and blood [i. e. man, or man's nature,] _hath not revealed_ it unto thee."--_Matt._, xvi, 17." Descent and fall to us _is_ adverse."--_Milton, P. L._, ii, 76. "This _philosopher_ and _poet was banished_ from his country."--"Such a _Saviour_ and _Redeemer is_ actually _provided_ for us."--_Gurney's Essays_, p. 386. "Let us then declare what great things our _God and Saviour has done_ for us."--_Dr. Scott_, on Luke viii. "_Toll, tribute_, and _custom, was paid_ unto them."--_Ezra_, iv, 20.

"Whose icy _current_ and compulsive _course_
Ne'er _feels_ retiring ebb, but _keeps_ due on."--_Shakspeare_.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

When two nominatives connected by _and_, are emphatically distinguished, they belong to different propositions, and, if singular, do not require a plural verb; as, "_Ambition_, and not the _safety_ of the state, _was concerned_."--_Goldsmith_. "_Consanguinity_, and not _affinity, is_ the ground of the prohibition."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 324. "But a _modification_, and oftentimes a total _change, takes_ place."--_Maunder. "Somewhat_, and, in many circumstances, a great _deal_ too, _is put_ upon us."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 108. "_Disgrace_, and perhaps _ruin, was_ the certain consequence of attempting the latter."--_Robertson's America_, i, 434.

"_Ay_, and _no_ too, _was_ no good divinity."--_Shakespeare.

"Love_, and _love only_, is the loan for love."--_Young_.

EXCEPTION THIRD.

When two or more nominatives connected by _and_ are preceded by the adjective _each, every, or no_, they are taken separately, and do not require a plural verb; as, "When _no part_ of their substance, and _no one_ of their properties, _is_ the same."--_Bp. Butler_. "Every limb and feature _appears_ with its respective grace."--_Steele_. "Every person, and every occurrence, _is beheld_ in the most favourable light."--_Murray's Key_, p. 190. "Each worm, and each insect, _is_ a marvel of creative power."

"Whose every look and gesture _was_ a joke
To clapping theatres and shouting crowds."--_Young_.

EXCEPTION FOURTH.

When the verb separates its nominatives, it agrees with that which precedes it, and is understood to the rest; as, "The _earth is_ the Lord's, and the _fullness_ thereof."--_Murray's Exercises_, p. 36.

"_Disdain forbids_ me, and my _dread_ of shame."--_Milton_.

"------Forth in the pleasing spring,
Thy _beauty walks_, thy _tenderness_, and _love_."--_Thomson_.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVI.

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

"What black despair, what horror, _fill_ his _mind_!"--_Ib._, ii, 183.

"What black despair, what horror _fills_ his _heart_!"--_Thomson_.[395]

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

"Poor and content _is_ rich, and rich enough."--_Othello_.

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

"One eye on death and one full fix'd on heaven,
_Becomes_ a mortal and immortal man."--_Young_.

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

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

"Art, empire, earth itself, to change _are_ doomed."--_Beattie_.

"Her heart, her mind, her love, _is_ his alone."--_Cowley_.

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

"Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense.
_Lie_ in three words--health, peace, and competence."
--_Pope's Ess._, Ep. iv, l. 80.

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

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

OBS. 7.--Dr. Webster says, "_Enumeration_ and addition of numbers are _usually_ expressed in the singular _number_; [as,] two and two _is_ four; seven and nine _is_ sixteen; that is, _the sum of_ seven and nine _is_ sixteen. But modern usage inclines to reject the use of the verb in the singular number, in these and similar phrases."--_Improved Gram._, p. 106. Among its many faults, this passage exhibits a virtual contradiction. For what "_modern usage_ inclines to reject," can hardly be the fashion in which any ideas "_are usually expressed_." Besides, I may safely aver, that this is a kind of phraseology which all correct usage always did reject. It is not only a gross vulgarism, but a plain and palpable violation of the foregoing rule of syntax; and, as such it must be reputed, if the rule has any propriety at all. What "_enumeration_" has to do with it, is more than I can tell. But Dr. Webster once admired and commended this mode of speech, as one of the "wonderful proofs of ingenuity in the _framers_ of language;" and laboured to defend it as being "correct upon principle;" that is, upon the principle that "_the sum of_" is understood to be the subject of the affirmation, when one says, "Two _and_ two _is_ four," in stead of, "Two and two _are_ four."--See _Webster's Philosophical Gram._, p. 153. This seems to me a "wonderful proof" of _ignorance_ in a very learned man. OBS. 8.--In Greek and Latin, the verb frequently agrees with the nearest nominative, and is understood to the rest; and this construction is sometimes imitated in English, especially if the nouns follow the verb: as, "[Greek: Nuni do MENEI pistis, elpis agape, ta tria tanta]."--"Nunc vero _manet_ fides, spes, charitas; tria hæc."--"Now _abideth_ faith, hope, charity; these three."--_1 Cor._, xiii, 13. "And now _abideth_ confession, prayer, and praise, these three; but the greatest of these is praise."--ATTERBURY: _Blair's Rhet._, p. 300. The propriety of this usage, so far as our language is concerned, I doubt. It seems to open a door for numerous deviations from the foregoing rule, and deviations of such a sort, that if they are to be considered exceptions, one can hardly tell why. The practice, however, is not uncommon, especially if there are more nouns than two, and each is emphatic; as, "Wonderful _was_ the patience, fortitude, self-denial, _and_ bravery of our ancestors."--_Webster's Hist. of U. S._, p. 118. "It is the very thing I would have you make out: for therein _consists_ the form, and use, and nature of language."--_Berkley's Alciphron_, p. 161. "There _is_ the proper noun, and the common noun. There _is_ the singular noun, and the plural noun."--_Emmons's Gram._, p. 11. "From him _proceeds_ power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every other blessing we can conceive."--_Calvin's Institutes_, B. i, Ch. 13. "To what purpose _cometh_ there to me incense from Sheba, _and_ the sweet cane from a far country?"--_Jer._, vi, 20. "For thine _is_ the kingdom, _and_ the power, _and_ the glory, forever."--_Matt._, vi, 13. In all these instances, the plural verb might have been used; and yet perhaps the singular may be justified on the ground that there is a distinct and emphatic enumeration of the nouns. Thus, it would be proper to say, "Thine _are_ the kingdom, the power, and the glory;" but this construction seems less emphatic than the preceding, which means, "For thine is the kingdom, _thine is_ the power, and _thine is_ the glory, forever;" and this repetition is still more emphatic, and perhaps more proper, than the elliptical form. The repetition of the conjunction "_and_," in the original text as above, adds time and emphasis to the reading, and makes the singular verb more proper than it would otherwise be; for which reason, the following form, in which the Rev. Dr. Bullions has set the sentence down for bad English, is in some sort a _perversion_ of the Scripture: "Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 141.

OBS. 9.--When the nominatives are of different _persons_, the verb agrees with the first person in preference to the second, and with the second in preference to the third; for _thou_ and _I_, or _he, thou_, and _I_, are equivalent to _we_; and _thou_ and _he_ are equivalent to you: as, "Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, _thou and Ziba divide_ the land."--_2 Sam._, xix. 29. That is, "divide _ye_ the land." "And _live thou_ and thy _children_ of the rest."--_2 Kings_, iv, 7. "That _I_ and thy _people have found_ grace in thy sight."--_Exodus_, xxxiii, 16. "_I_ and my _kingdom are_ guiltless."--_2 Sam._, iii, 28. "_I_, and _you_, and _Piso_ perhaps too, _are_ in a state of dissatisfaction."--_Zenobia_, i, 114.

"Then _I_, and _you_, and _all_ of us, _fell_ down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over _us_."--_Shak., J. Cæsar_.

OBS. 10.--When two or more nominatives connected by _and_ are of the same form but distinguished by adjectives or possessives, one or more of them may be omitted by ellipsis, but the verb must be plural, and agree with them all; as, "A literary, a scientific, a wealthy, and a poor man, _were assembled_ in one room."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 263. Here four different men are clearly spoken of. "Else the rising and the falling emphasis _are_ the same."--_Knowles's Elocutionist_, p. 33. Here the noun _emphasis_ is understood after _rising_. "The singular and [the] plural form _seem_ to be confounded."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 22. Here the noun _form_ is presented to the mind twice; and therefore the article should have been repeated. See Obs. 15th on Rule 1st. "My farm and William's _are_ adjacent to each other."--_Peirce's Gram._, p. 220. Here the noun _farm_ is understood after the possessive _William's_, though the author of the sentence foolishly attempts to explain it otherwise. "Seth's, Richard's and Edmund's _farms_ are those which their fathers left them."--_Ib._, p. 257. Here the noun _farms_ is understood after _Seth's_, and again after _Richard's_; so that the sentence is written wrong, unless each man has more than one farm. "_Was_ not Demosthenes's style, and his master Plato's, perfectly Attic; and yet none more lofty?"--_Milnes's Greek Gram._, p. 241. Here _style_ is understood after _Plato's_; wherefore _was_ should rather be _were_, or else _and_ should be changed to _as well as_. But the text, as it stands, is not much unlike some of the exceptions noticed above. "The character of a fop, and of a rough warrior, _are_ no where more successfully contrasted."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 236. Here the ellipsis is not very proper. Say, "the character of a fop, and _that_ of a rough warrior," &c. Again: "We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, of the legislature, and of public assemblies, _are_ seldom _or ever_ found united _to high perfection in_ the same person."--_J. Q. Adams's Rhet._, Vol. i, p. 256. Here the ellipsis cannot so well be avoided by means of the pronominal adjective _that_, and therefore it may be thought more excusable; but I should prefer a repetition of the nominative: as, "We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, _the eloquence_ of the legislature, and _the eloquence_ of public assemblies, are seldom _if ever_ found united, _in any high degree_, in the same person."

OBS. 11.--The conjunction _as_, when it connects nominatives that are in _apposition_, or significant of the same person or thing, is commonly placed at the beginning of a sentence, so that the verb agrees with its proper nominative following the explanatory word: thus, "_As a poet, he holds_ a high rank."--_Murray's Sequel_, p. 355. "_As a poet, Addison claims_ a high praise."--_Ib._, p. 304. "_As a model_ of English prose, his _writings merit_ the greatest praise."--_Ib._, p. 305. But when this conjunction denotes a _comparison_ between different persons or things signified by two nominatives, there must be two verbs expressed or understood, each agreeing with its own subject; as, "Such _writers_ as _he [is,] have_ no reputation worth any man's envy." [396]

"Such _men_ as _he [is] be_ never at heart's ease
Whiles they behold a greater than themselves."--_Shakspeare_.

OBS. 12.--When two nominatives are connected by _as well as, but_, or _save_, they must in fact have two verbs, though in most instances only one is expressed; as, "Such is the mutual dependence of words in sentences, that several _others_, as well as [is] the _adjective, are_ not to be used alone."--_Dr. Wilson's Essay_, p. 99. "The Constitution was to be the one fundamental law of the land, to which _all_, as well _States_ as _people_, should submit."--W. I. BOWDITCH: _Liberator_, No. 984. "As well those which history, as those which experience _offers_ to our reflection."-- _Bolingbroke, on History_, p. 85. Here the words "_offers to our reflection_" are understood after "_history_." "_None_ but _He_ who discerns futurity, _could have foretold_ and described all these things."--_Keith's Evidences_, p. 62. "That there _was_ in those times no other _writer_, of any degree of eminence, save _he_ himself."--_Pope's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 43.

"I do entreat you not a man depart,
Save _I_ alone, till Antony have spoke."--_Shak., J. Cæsar_.

OBS. 13.--Some grammarians say, that _but_ and _save_, when they denote exception, should govern the objective case as _prepositions_. But this idea is, without doubt, contrary to the current usage of the best authors, either ancient or modern. Wherefore I think it evident that these grammarians err. The objective case of _nouns_ being like the nominative, the point can be proved only by the _pronouns_; as, "There is none _but he_ alone."--_Perkins's Theology_, 1608. "There is none other _but he_."--_Mark_, xii, 32. (This text is good authority as regards the _case_, though it is incorrect in an other respect: it should have been, "There is _none but_ he," or else, "There is _no other than he_.") "No man hath ascended up to heaven, _but he_ that came down from heaven."--_John_, iii, 13. "Not that any man hath seen the father, _save he_ which is of God."--_John_, vi, 46. "Few can, _save he_ and _I_."--_Byron's Werner_. "There is none justified, _but he_ that is in measure sanctified."--_Isaac Penington_. _Save_, as a conjunction, is nearly obsolete.

OBS. 14.--In Rev., ii, 17th, we read, "Which no man knoweth, _saving he_ that receiveth it;" and again, xiii, 17th, "That no man might buy or sell, _save he_ that had the mark." The following text is inaccurate, but not in the construction of the nominative _they_: "All men cannot receive this saying, _save they_ to whom it is given."--_Matt._, xix, 11. The version ought to have been, "_Not all_ men can receive this saying, _but they only_ to whom it is given:" i.e., "they only _can receive it_, to whom _there is given power to receive it_." Of _but_ with a nominative, examples may be multiplied indefinitely. The following are as good as any: "There is no God _but He_."--_Sale's Koran_, p. 27. "The former none _but He_ could execute."--_Maturin's Sermons_, p. 317. "There was nobody at home _but I_."--_Walker's Particles_, p. 95. "A fact, of which as none _but he_ could be conscious, [so] none _but he_ could be the publisher of it."--_Pope's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 117. "Few _but they_ who are involved in the vices, are involved in the irreligion of the times."--_Brown's Estimate_, i, 101.

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

"Thus she, and none _but she_, the insulting rage
Of heretics oppos'd from age to age."
--_Dryden's Poems_, p. 98.

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

"Let _none but him_ who rules the thunder,
Attempt to part these twain asunder."
--_Perley's Gram._, p. 62.

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

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

"REM. 3.--The word _save_ is frequently used to perform the office of a preposition; as, 'And all desisted, all _save him_ alone.'--_Wordsworth_."

"REM. 4.--_But_ is sometimes employed as a preposition, in the sense of _except_; as, 'The boy stood on the burning deck, Whence all _but him_ had fled.'--_Hemans_."--_Ib._, p. 167.

Now, "BUT," says Worcester, as well as Tooke and others, was "originally _bot_, contracted from _be out_;" and, if this notion of its etymology is just, it must certainly be followed by the nominative case, rather than by the objective; for the imperative _be_ or _be out_ governs no case, admits no additional term but a nominative--an obvious and important fact, quite overlooked by those who call _but_ a preposition. According to Allen H. Weld, _but_ and _save_ "are _commonly_ considered _prepositions_," but "are _more commonly_ termed _conjunctions_!" This author repeats Wells's examples of "_save him_," and "_but him_," as being _right_; and mixes them with opposite examples of "_save he_," "_but he_," "_save I_," which he thinks to be _more right_!--_Weld's Gram._, p. 187.

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

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

OBS. 19.--Dr. Adam simply remarks, "The plural is sometimes used after the preposition _cum_ put for _et_; as, _Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt_. Virg."--_Latin and English Gram._, p. 207; _Gould's Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 204; _W. Allen's English Gram._, 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better. Alexander has it in a worse form still: "Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt."--_Latin Gram._, p. 47. Virgil's words are, "_Cana_ FIDES, _et_ VESTA, _Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt_."--_Æneid_, B. i, l. 296. Nor is _cum_ here "put for _et_," unless we suppose also an antiptosis of _Remo fratre_ for _Remus frater_; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they _correct_ in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: "The palace of Pizarro, _together with_ the houses of several of his adherents, _were_ pillaged by the soldiers."-- _Hist. of Amer._, Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, "_were_" ought to be _was_. Secondly, if _were_ be retained, "_together with_" ought to be changed to _and_, or _and also_. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, "The palace of Pizarro, _as well as_ the houses of several of his adherents, _was_ pillaged by the soldiers." Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: "And there appeared _unto them_ Elias, _with_ Moses; and _they_ were talking with Jesus." If this text meant that _the three disciples_ were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, "And, behold, there appeared unto them _Moses and Elias, talking_ with him;" and our version in Luke is, "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias."--Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the pronoun _they_, which our translators inserted, was meant for "_Elias with Moses_;" but the Greek verb for "_appeared_," as used by Mark, is _singular_, and agrees only with Elias. "[Greek: _Kai ophthæ autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai hæsan syllalountes to Iæsoy_.]"--"Et _apparuit_ illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu."--_Montanus_. "Et _visus est_ eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu."--_Beza_. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: "Et iis virent paroître _Moyse et Elie_, qui s'entretenoient avec Jésus." That is, "And there appeared to them _Moses and Elias_, who were talking with Jesus." Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, "And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and _these two_ were talking with Jesus." There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, "The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, _who with_ his brethren and sons _were_ twelve."--_1 Chron._, xxv, 9. Better: "_and he_, his brethren, and _his_ sons, were twelve."

OBS. 20.--Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting _with_ for _and_; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such "a sort of addition made to it." The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable example, "Sidmouth, _with_ Oliver the _spye_, have brought Brandreth to the block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The _Tyrant, with_ the _Spy, have_ brought _Peter_ to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, _has_ or _have_. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use _and_, and not _with_? After some further illustrations, he says: "When _with_ means _along with, together with, in Company with_, and the like, it is nearly the same as _and_; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with his brothers, _are_ able to do much.' Not, '_is_ able to do much.' If the pronoun be used instead of _brothers_, it will be in the objective case: 'He, _with_ them, _are_ able to do much.' But this is _no impediment_ to the including of the noun (represented by _them_) in the nominative." I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist! The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, _do_ much;' and not '_does_ much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it _does nothing_. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness _with_ contentment _is_ great gain:"--_1 Tim._, vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its _meaning_? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?