The Grammar of English Grammars Part 122

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XIII.

OBS. 1.--When two or more singular antecedents are connected by _or_ or _nor_, the p.r.o.noun which represents them, ought in general to be singular, because _or_ and _nor_ are disjunctives; and, to form a complete concord, the nouns ought also to be of the same person and gender, that the p.r.o.noun may agree in all respects with each of them. But when _plural_ nouns are connected in this manner, the p.r.o.noun will of course be plural, though it still agrees with the antecedents singly; as, "Neither _riches_ nor _honours_ ever satisfy _their_ pursuers." Sometimes, when different numbers occur together, we find the plural noun put last, and the p.r.o.noun made plural after both, especially if this noun is a mere subst.i.tute for the other; as,

"What's justice to a man, or laws, That never comes within _their_ claws."--_Hudibras_.

OBS. 2.--When antecedents of different persons, numbers, or genders, are connected by _or_ or _nor_, they cannot very properly be represented by any p.r.o.noun that is not applicable to each of them. The following sentences are therefore inaccurate; or at least they contradict the teachings of their own authors: "Either _thou or I_ am greatly mistaken, in _our_ judgment on this subject."--_Murray's Key_, p. 184 "Your character, which _I, or any other writer_, may now value _ourselves_ by (upon) drawing."--SWIFT: _Lowth's Gram._, p. 96. "Either _you or I_ will be in _our_ place in due time."--_Coopers Gram._, p. 127. But different p.r.o.nouns may be so connected as to refer to such antecedents taken separately; as, "By requiring greater labour from such _slave or slaves_, than _he or she or they_ are able to perform."--_Prince's Digest_. Or, if the gender only be different, the masculine may involve the feminine by implication; as, "If a man smite the eye of his _servant_, or the eye of his _maid_, that it perish, he shall let _him_ go free for _his_ eye's sake."--_Exodus_, xxi, 26.

OBS. 3.--It is however very common to resort to the plural number in such instances as the foregoing, because our plural p.r.o.nouns are alike in all the genders; as, "When either _man or woman_ shall separate _themselves_ to vow a vow of a Nazarite."--_Numbers_, vi, 2. "Then shalt thou bring forth _that man or that woman_ unto thy gates, and shalt stone them with stones, till _they_ die."--_Deut._, xvii, 5. "Not on outward charms could _he or she_ build _their_ pretensions to please."--_Opie, on Lying_, p. 148.

"Complimenting either _man or woman_ on agreeable qualities which _they_ do not possess, in hopes of imposing on _their_ credulity."--_Ib._, p. 108.

"_Avidien_, or his _wife_, (no matter which,) _sell their_ presented partridges and fruits."--_Pope_, Sat. ii, l. 50. "Beginning with Latin _or_ Greek hexameter, _which are_ the same."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 79.

"Did ever _Proteus, Merlin_, any _witch_, Transform _themselves_ so strangely as the rich?"

--_Pope_, Ep. i, l. 152.

OBS. 4.--From the observations and examples above, it may be perceived, that whenever there is a difference of person, number, or gender, in antecedents connected disjunctively, there is an inherent difficulty respecting the form of the p.r.o.noun personal. The best mode of meeting this inconvenience, or of avoiding it by a change of the phraseology, may be different on different occasions. The disjunctive connexion of explicit p.r.o.nouns is the most correct, but it savours too much of legal precision and wordiness to be always eligible. Commonly an ingenious mind may invent some better expression, and yet avoid any syntactical anomaly. In Latin, when nouns are connected by the conjunctions which correspond to _or_ or _nor_, the p.r.o.noun or verb is so often made plural, that no such principle as that of the foregoing Rule, or of Rule 17th, is taught by the common grammars of that language. How such usage can be logically right, however, it is difficult to imagine. Lowth, Murray, Webster, and most other English grammarians, teach, that, "The conjunction disjunctive has an effect contrary to that of the copulative; and, as the verb, noun, or p.r.o.noun, is referred to the preceding terms taken separately, it must be in the singular number."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 75; _L. Murray's_, 151; _Churchill's_, 142; _W. Allen's_, 133; _Lennie's_, 83; _and many others_.

If there is any allowable exception to this principle, it is for the adoption of the plural when the concord cannot be made by any one p.r.o.noun singular; as, "If I value my friend's _wife or son_ upon account of _their_ connexion with him."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 73. "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, _thou nor thy sons_ with thee, when _ye_ go into the tabernacle of the congregation."--_Levit._, x, 8. These examples, though they do not accord with the preceding rule, seem not to be susceptible of any change for the better. There are also some other modes of expression, in which nouns that are connected disjunctively, may afterwards be represented together; as "_Foppery_ is a sort of folly much more contagious THAN _pedantry_; but as _they_ result alike from affectation, _they_ deserve alike to be proscribed."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 217.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XIII.

p.r.o.nOUNS WITH ANTECEDENTS CONNECTED BY OR OR NOR.

"Neither prelate nor priest can give their flocks any decisive evidence that you are lawful pastors."--_Dr. Brownlee_.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the p.r.o.noun _their_ is of the plural number, and does not correctly represent its two antecedents _prelate_ and _priest_, which are connected by _nor_, and taken disjunctively. But, according to Rule 13th, "When a p.r.o.noun has two or more antecedents connected by _or_ or _nor_, it must agree with them singly, and not as if taken together." Therefore, _their_ should be _his_; thus, "Neither prelate nor priest can give _his_ flocks any decisive evidence that you are lawful pastors."]

"And is there a heart of parent or of child, that does not beat and burn within them?"--_Maturin's Sermons_, p. 367. "This is just as if an eye or a foot should demand a salary for their service to the body."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 178. "If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee."--_Matt._, xviii, 8. "The same might as well be said of Virgil, or any great author, whose general character will infallibly raise many casual additions to their reputation."--_Pope's Pref. to Homer_.

"Either James or John, one of them, will come."--_Smith's New Gram._, p.

37. "Even a rugged rock or barren heath, though in themselves disagreeable, contribute by contrast to the beauty of the whole."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 185. "That neither Count Rechteren nor Monsieur Mesnager had behaved themselves right in this affair."--_Spect._, No. 481. "If an Aristotle, a Pythagoras, or a Galileo, suffer for their opinions, they are 'martyrs.'"--_Gospel its own Witness_, p. 80. "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned."--_Exodus_, xxi, 28. "She was calling out to one or an other, at every step, that a Habit was ensnaring them."--DR. JOHNSON: _Murray's Sequel_, 181. "Here is a Task put upon Children, that neither this Author, nor any other have yet undergone themselves."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 162. "Hence, if an adjective or participle be subjoined to the verb, when of the singular number, they will agree both in gender and number with the collective noun."--_Adam's Lat. Gram._, p. 154; _Gould's_, 158. "And if you can find a diphthong, or a triphthong, be pleased to point them out too."--_Bucke's Cla.s.sical Gram._, p. 16. "And if you can find a diphthong, or a triphthong, a trissyllable, or a polysyllable, point them respectively out."--_Ib._, p.

25. "The false refuges in which the atheist or the sceptic have intrenched themselves."--_Christian Spect._, viii, 185. "While the man or woman thus a.s.sisted by art expects their charms will be imputed to nature alone."--_Opie_, 141. "When you press a watch, or pull a clock, they answer your question with precision; for they repeat exactly the hour of the day, and tell you neither more nor less than you desire to know."--_Bolingbroke, on History_, p. 102.

"Not the Mogul, or Czar of Muscovy, Not Prester John, or Cham of Tartary, Are in their houses Monarch more than I."

--KING: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. iii, p. 613.

CHAPTER VI.--VERBS.

In this work, the syntax of Verbs is embraced in six consecutive rules, with the necessary exceptions, notes, and observations, under them; hence this chapter extends from the fourteenth to the twentieth rule in the series.

RULE XIV.--FINITE VERBS.

Every finite Verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number: as, "I _know_; thou _knowst_, or _knowest_; he _knows_, or _knoweth_"--"The bird _flies_; the birds _fly_."

"Our fathers' fertile _fields_ by slaves _are till'd_, And _Rome_ with dregs of foreign lands _is fill'd_."

--_Rowe's Lucan_, B. vii, l. 600.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XIV.

OBS. 1.--To this general rule for the verb, there are properly _no exceptions_;[385] and all the special rules that follow, which prescribe the concord of verbs in particular instances, virtually accord with it.

Every _finite verb_, (that is, every verb _not in the infinitive mood_,) must have some noun, p.r.o.noun, or phrase equivalent, known as the _subject_ of the being, action, or pa.s.sion;[386] and with this subject, whether expressed or understood, the verb must agree in person and number. The infinitive mood, as it does not unite with a nominative to form an a.s.sertion, is of course exempt from any such agreement. These may be considered principles of Universal Grammar. The Greeks, however, had a strange custom of using a plural noun of the neuter gender, with a verb of the third person singular; and in both Greek and Latin, the infinitive mood with an accusative before it was often equivalent to a finite verb with its nominative. In English we have _neither of these usages_; and plural nouns, even when they denote no absolute plurality, (as _shears, scissors, trowsers, pantaloons, tongs_,) require plural verbs or p.r.o.nouns: as, "Your _shears come_ too late, to clip the bird's wings."--SIDNEY: _Churchill's Gram._, p. 30.

OBS. 2.--When a book that bears a plural t.i.tle, is spoken of as one thing, there is sometimes presented an _apparent exception_ to the foregoing rule; as, "The _Pleasures_ of Memory _was published_ in the year 1792, and became at once popular."--_Allan Cunningham_. "The '_Sentiments_ of a Church-of-England Man' _is written_ with great coolness, moderation, ease, and perspicuity."--_Johnson's Life of Swift_. "The '_Pleasures_ of Hope'

_is_ a splendid poem; _it_ was written for perpetuity."--_Samuel L. Knapp_.

In these instances, there is, I apprehend, either an agreement of the verb, by the figure _syllepsis_, with the mental conception of the thing spoken of; or an improper ellipsis of the common noun, with which each sentence ought to commence; as, "The _poem_ ent.i.tled,"--"The _work_ ent.i.tled," &c.

But the plural t.i.tle sometimes controls the form of the verb; as, "My Lives are reprinting."--_Dr. Johnson_.

OBS. 3.--In the figurative use of the present tense for the past or imperfect, the vulgar have a habit of putting the third person singular with the p.r.o.noun _I_; as, "_Thinks I_ to myself."--_Rev. J. Marriott_. "O, _says I_, Jacky, are you at that work?"--_Day's Sandford and Merton_.

"Huzza! huzza! Sir Condy Rackrent forever, was the first thing _I hears_ in the morning."--_Edgeworth's Castle Rackrent_, p. 97. This vulgarism is to be avoided, not by a simple omission of the terminational _s_, but rather by the use of the literal preterit: as, "_Thought_ I to myself;"--"O, _said_ I;"--"The first thing I _heard_." The same mode of correction is also proper, when, under like circ.u.mstances, there occurs a disagreement in number; as, "After the election was over, there _comes shoals_ of people from all parts."--_Castle Rackrent_, p. 103. "Didn't ye hear it? _says they_ that were looking on."--_Ib._, p. 147. Write, "there _came_,"--"_said they_."

OBS. 4.--It has already been noticed, that the article _a_, or a singular adjective, sometimes precedes an arithmetical number with a plural noun; as, "_A thousand years_ in thy sight _are_ but as yesterday."--_Psalms_, xc, 4. So we might say, "_One_ thousand years _are_,"--"_Each_ thousand years _are_"--"_Every_ thousand years _are_," &c. But it would not be proper to say, "A thousand years _is_," or, "Every thousand years _is_;"

because the noun _years_ is plainly plural, and the anomaly of putting a singular verb after it, is both needless and unauthorized. Yet, to this general rule for the verb, the author of a certain "English Grammar _on the Productive System_," (a strange perversion of Murray's compilation, and a mere catch-penny work, now extensively used in New England,) is endeavouring to establish, by his own bare word, the following exception: "_Every_ is sometimes a.s.sociated with a plural noun, in which case the verb must be singular; as, 'Every hundred years _const.i.tutes_ a century.'"--_Smith's New Gram._, p. 103. His _reason_ is this; that the phrase containing the nominative, "_signifies a single period of time_, and is, therefore, _in reality_ singular."--_Ib._ Cutler also, a more recent writer, seems to have imbibed the same notion; for he gives the following sentence as an example of "false construction: Every hundred years _are_ called a century."--_Cutler's Grammar and Pa.r.s.er_, p. 145. But, according to this argument, no plural verb could ever be used with any _definite number_ of the parts of time; for any three years, forty years, or threescore years and ten, are as single a period of time, as "every hundred years," "every four years," or "every twenty-four hours." Nor is it true, that, "_Every_ is sometimes a.s.sociated with a plural noun;" for "_every years_" or "_every hours_," would be worse than nonsense. I, therefore, acknowledge no such exception; but, discarding the principle of the note, put this author's pretended _corrections_ among my quotations of _false syntax_.

OBS. 5.--Different verbs always have different subjects, expressed or understood; except when two or more verbs are connected in the same construction, or when the same word is repeated for the sake of emphasis.

But let not the reader believe the common doctrine of our grammarians, respecting either the ellipsis of nominatives or the ellipsis of verbs. In the text, "The man was old and crafty," Murray sees no connexion of the ideas of age and craftiness, but thinks the text a _compound sentence_, containing two nominatives and two verbs; i.e., "The man was old, and _the man was_ crafty." [387] And all his other instances of "the ellipsis of the verb" are equally fanciful! See his _Octavo Gram._, p. 219; _Duodecimo_, 175. In the text, "G.o.d loves, protects, supports, and rewards the rights,"

there are four verbs in _the same construction_, agreeing with the same nominative, and governing the same object; but Buchanan and others expound it, "G.o.d loves, and G.o.d protects, and G.o.d supports, and G.o.d rewards the righteous."--_English Syntax_, p. 76; _British Gram._, 192. This also is fanciful and inconsistent. If the nominative is here "_elegantly understood_ to each verb," so is the objective, which they do not repeat.

"And again," they immediately add, "the _verb_ is often understood to its noun or nouns; as, He dreams of gibbets, halters, racks, daggers, &c. i.e.

He dreams of gibbets, and he dreams of halters, &c."--_Same works and places_. In none of these examples is there any occasion to suppose an ellipsis, if we admit that two or more words _can_ be connected in the same construction!

OBS. 6.--Verbs in the imperative mood commonly agree with the p.r.o.noun _thou, ye_, or _you_, understood after them; as, "_Heal [ye_] the sick, _cleanse [ye_] the lepers, _raise [ye_] the dead, _cast [ye_] out devils."--_Matt._, x, 8. "_Trust_ G.o.d and _be doing_, and _leave_ the rest with him."--_Dr. Sibs_. When the doer of a thing must first proceed to the place of action, we sometimes use _go_ or _come_ before an other verb, without any conjunction between the two; as, "Son, _go work_ to-day in my vineyard."--_Matt._, xxi, 28. "_Come see_ a man who [has] told me all things that ever I did."--_John_, iv, 29. "He ordered his soldiers to _go murder_ every child about Bethlehem, or near it."--_Wood's Dict. of Bible, w. Herod_. "Take a present in thine hand, and _go meet_ the man of G.o.d."--_2 Kings_, viii, 8. "I will _go see_ if he be at home."--_Walker's Particles_, p. 169.

OBS. 7.--The _place_ of the verb has reference mainly to that of the subject with which it agrees, and that of the object which it governs; and as the arrangement of these, with the instances in which they come before or after the verb, has already been noticed, the position of the latter seems to require no further explanation. See Obs. 2d under Rule 2d, and Obs. 2d under Rule 5th.

OBS. 8.--The infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, (and, according to some authors, the participle in _ing_, or a phrase beginning with this participle,) is sometimes the proper subject of a verb, being equivalent to a nominative of the third person singular; as, "To play _is_ pleasant."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 80. "To write well, _is_ difficult; to speak eloquently, _is_ still more difficult."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 81. "To take men off from prayer, _tends_ to irreligiousness, _is granted_."--_Barclay's Works_, i, 214. "To educate a child perfectly, _requires_ profounder thought, greater wisdom, than to govern a state."--_Channing's Self-Culture_, p. 30. "To determine these points, _belongs_ to good sense."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 321. "How far the change would contribute to his welfare, _comes_ to be considered."--_Id., Sermons_. "That too much care does hurt in any of our tasks, _is_ a doctrine so flattering to indolence, that we ought to receive it with extreme caution."--_Life of Schiller_, p. 148. "That there is no disputing about taste, _is_ a saying so generally received as to have become a proverb."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 360. "For what purpose they embarked, _is_ not yet known."--"To live in sin and yet to believe the forgiveness of sin, _is_ utterly impossible."--_Dr. J. Owen_.

"There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, But drinking largely _sobers_ us again."--_Pope_.

OBS. 9.--The same meaning will be expressed, if the p.r.o.noun _it_ be placed before the verb, and the infinitive, phrase, or santance, after it; as, "_It_ is pleasant _to play_,"--"_It_ is difficult _to write well_;" &c. The construction of the following sentences is rendered defective by the omission of this p.r.o.noun: "Why do ye that which [_it_] is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?"--_Luke_, vi, 2. "The show-bread, which [_it_] is not lawful to eat, but for the priests only."--_Ib._, vi, 4. "We have done that which [_it_] was our duty to do."--_Ib._, xvii, 10. Here the relative _which_ ought to be in the objective case, governed by the infinitives; but the omission of the word _it_ makes this relative the nominative to _is_ or _was_, and leaves _to do_ and _to eat_ without any regimen. This is not ellipsis, but error. It is an accidental gap into which a side piece falls, and leaves a breach elsewhere. The following is somewhat like it, though what falls in, appears to leave no chasm: "From this deduction, [_it_] _may be easily seen_ how it comes to pa.s.s, that personification makes so great a figure."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 155. "Whether the author had any meaning in this expression, or what it was, [_it_] _is not easy_ to determine."--_Murray's Gram._, Vol. i, p. 298. "That warm climates should accelerate the growth of the human body, and shorten its duration, [_it_]

_is very reasonable_ to believe."--_Ib._, p. 144. These also need the p.r.o.noun, though Murray thought them complete without it.

OBS. 10.--When the infinitive mood is made the subject of a finite verb, it is most commonly used to express action or state in the abstract; as, "_To be_ contents his natural desire."--_Pope_. Here _to be_ stands for simple _existence_; or if for the existence _of the Indian_, of whom the author speaks, that relation is merely implied. "_To define ridicule_, has puzzled and vexed every critic."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, i, 300. Here "_to define_"

expresses an action quite as distinct from any agent, as would the participial noun; as, "The _defining of_ ridicule," &c. In connexion with the infinitive, a concrete quality may also be taken as an abstract; as, "_To be good_ is _to be happy_." Here _good_ and _happy_ express the quality of _goodness_ and the state of _happiness_ considered abstractly; and therefore these adjectives do not relate to any particular noun. So also the pa.s.sive infinitive, or a perfect participle taken in a pa.s.sive sense; as, "_To be satisfied with a little_, is the greatest wisdom."--"_To appear discouraged_, is the way to become so." Here the _satisfaction_ and the _discouragement_ are considered abstractly, and without reference to any particular person. (See Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 6th.) So too, apparently, the participles _doing_ and _suffering_, as well as the adjective _weak_, in the following example:

"Fallen Cherub, to be _weak_ is miserable, _Doing_ or _suffering_."--_Milton's Paradise Lost_.

OBS. 11.--When the action or state is to be expressly limited to one cla.s.s of beings, or to a particular person or thing, without making the verb finite; the noun or p.r.o.noun may be introduced before the infinitive by the preposition _for_: as, "_For men to search_ their own glory, is not glory."--_Prov._, xxv, 27. "_For a prince to be reduced_ by villany [sic--KTH] to my distressful circ.u.mstances, is calamity enough."--_Translation of Sall.u.s.t_. "_For holy persons to be humble_, is as hard, as _for a prince to submit_ himself to be guided by tutors."--TAYLOR: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 132; _Murray's_, 184. But such a limitation is sometimes implied, when the expression itself is general; as, "_Not to know me_, argues thyself unknown."--_Milton_. That is, "_For thee_ not to know me." The phrase is put far, "_Thy ignorance of me_;" for an other's ignorance would be no argument in regard to the individual addressed. "_I, to bear this_, that never knew but better, _is_ some burden."--_Beauties of Shak._, p. 327. Here the infinitive _to bear_, which is the subject of the verb _is_, is limited in sense by the p.r.o.noun _I_, which is put absolute in the nominative, though perhaps _improperly_; because, "_For me to bear this_," &c., will convey the same meaning, in a form much more common, and perhaps more grammatical. In the following couplet, there is an ellipsis of the infinitive; for the phrase, "fool with fool," means, "_for_ fool _to contend_ with fool," or, "for one fool to contend with an other:"

"Blockheads with reason wicked wits abhor, But _fool with fool_ is barb'rous civil war."

--_Pope, Dunciad_, B. iii, l. 175.

OBS. 12.--The objective noun or p.r.o.noun thus introduced by _for_ before the infinitive, was erroneously called by Priestley, "_the subject of the affirmation_;" (_Gram._, p. 132;) and Murray, Ingersoll, and others, have blindly copied the blunder. See _Murray's Gram._, p. 184; _Ingersoll's_, 244. Again, Ingersoll says, "The infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is sometimes the subject of a verb, _and is, therefore, its_ NOMINATIVE."--_Conversations on English Gram._, p. 246. To this erroneous deduction, the phraseology used by Murray and others too plainly gives countenance: "The infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is sometimes put _as the nominative case_ to the verb."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 144; _Fisk's_, 123; _Kirkham's_, 188; _Lennie's_, 99; _Bullions's_, 89; and many more. Now the objective before the infinitive may not improperly be called _the subject_ of this form of the verb, as the nominative is, of the finite; but to call it "the subject _of the affirmation_," is plainly absurd; because no infinitive, in English, ever expresses an affirmation. And again, if a whole phrase or sentence is made the subject of a _finite_ verb, or of an affirmation, no one word contained in it, can singly claim this t.i.tle. Nor can the whole, by virtue of this relation, be said to be "in the _nominative case_;" because, in the nature of things, neither phrases nor sentences are capable of being declined by cases.

OBS. 13.--Any phrase or sentence which is made the subject of a finite verb, must be taken in the sense of _one thing_, and be spoken of as _a whole_; so that the verb's agreement with it, in the third person singular, is not an exception to Rule 14th, but a construction in which the verb may be pa.r.s.ed by that rule. For any one thing merely spoken of, is of the third person singular, whatever may be the nature of its parts. Not every phrase or sentence, however, is fit to be made the subject of a verb;--that is, if its own import, and not the mere expression, is the thing whereof we affirm. Thus Dr. Ash's example for this very construction, "a _sentence_ made the subject of a verb," is, I think, a palpable solecism: "The King and Queen appearing in public _was_ the cause of my going."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 52. What is here before the verb _was_, is _no_ "_sentence_;" but a mere phrase, and such a one as we should expect to see used independently, if any regard were had to its own import. The Doctor would tell us what "was _the cause_ of his going:" and here he has two nominatives, which are equivalent to the plural _they_; q.d., "_They_ appearing in public _was_ the cause." But such a construction is not English. It is an other sample of the false ill.u.s.tration which grammar receives from those who _invent_ the proof-texts which they ought to _quote_.