CHAPTER I.

OF CONCORD.

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.

Priestley has remarked that the pronouns _whoever_ and _whosoever_ have sometimes a double construction. He gives the two following examples. “Elizabeth publicly threatened that she would have the head of whoever had advised it.”--_Hume._ “He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him to a sight of him.”--_Hume._ Though the learned author seems to admit both these modes of construction, we apprehend that only one of them is grammatical. It has been just now observed that the antecedent is often understood to the relative _who_, and to the compounds _whoever_ and _whosoever_. If the antecedent be supplied, it will be found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley supposes, but definite and fixed. The first sentence is correct. “She would have the head of him, or them, whoever had advised,” the relative being the nominative to the verb. “He offered a great recompense to him, or them, whosoever should help him.” _Whomsoever_ is a solecism: though close to the preposition _to_, it is not under its government. (_See the following rules._)

RULE X.--If no nominative intervene between the relative and the verb, the relative shall be the nominative to the verb, as, “Solomon, who was the son of David, built the temple of Jerusalem.” Here _who_ is the nominative to the verb _was_.

RULE XI.--But, if a nominative intervene between the relative and the verb, the relative shall be under the government of the preposition going before, or the noun or verb following, as, “God, whom we worship, is the Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom all things were made.” In the first relative clause, where _we_ is the intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, and governed by the verb following: in the second clause, where the intervening nominative is likewise _we_, the relative is in the genitive case, and governed by the noun following, thus, “by whose gift,” or “by the gift of whom;” and in the third clause, where _things_ is the intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, and governed by the preposition.

_Note_ 1.--The case of the relative may always be ascertained by repeating the antecedent, and arranging the clause in the natural order, thus, “the city, which is called Rome, was founded by Romulus,” _i.e._ “the city, which city is called Rome.” The antecedent repeated is the nominative to the verb _is_, _which_ therefore agrees with it in case. “God, who sees all things, will punish the wicked,” _i.e._ “God, which God sees all things;” the relative, therefore, is the nominative to the verb _sees_, that is, it is in the same case in which the antecedent would be put, if again expressed. “Solomon, whom David loved, was the wisest of princes.” Here, if we arrange the relative clause in the natural order, beginning with the nominative and the verb, it will run thus, “David loved whom,” an expression analogous to “David loved him,” or “David loved which Solomon.” Many solecisms in the construction of the relative would be easily avoided, by a little attention to the natural arrangement. Thus, instead of committing the error involved in the following examples, “The philosopher, who he saw to be a man of profound knowledge,” “’Twas my brother, who you met with,” “I was a stranger to the person, who I spoke to,” we should be led by the natural order to the correct phraseology; “he saw whom,” “you met with whom,” “I spoke to whom.” It is to be observed, however, that, though the personal pronouns, when under the government of a verb, may either precede or follow it, the relative in the same state of government must invariably go before it.

_Note_ 2.--The relatives _who_ and _which_ are often understood, especially in colloquial language: “The friend I visited yesterday is dead to-day,” _i.e._ “the friend whom I visited yesterday is dead to-day.”

_Note_ 3.--After a comparative, both relative and antecedent are often understood. “The damage was far greater than he knew.” Here there is a comparison of two objects, the damage suffered, and the damage known; but only one is expressed. The sentence, if the ellipsis were supplied, would run thus, “The damage was far greater, than what,” or “that, which he knew.”

_Note_ 4.--There are a few cases, which are considered by some distinguished critics and grammarians, as requiring the use of _that_ in preference to the pronouns _who_ and _which_.

1st. After superlatives the pronoun _that_ is generally used, as, “The wisest man, that ever lived, is liable to error.”

2ndly. After the word _same_, _that_ is generally used, as, “he is the same man, that you saw yesterday.” But, if a preposition should precede the relative, one of the other two pronouns must be employed, the pronoun _that_ not admitting a preposition prefixed to it, as, “he is the same man, with whom you were acquainted.” It is remarkable, however, that when the arrangement is somewhat changed, the word _that_ admits the preposition, as, “he is the same man, that you were acquainted with.”

3rdly. _That_ is used after _who_, taken interrogatively, as, “Who, that has the spirit of a man, would suffer himself to be thus degraded?”

4thly. When persons and things are referred to, as, “the _men_ and _things_, _that_ he hath studied, have not contributed to the improvement of his morals.”

RULE XII.--An active transitive verb governs the accusative or objective case, as,

“He teaches me.” “We honour him.”

_Note_ 1.--As examples of transgression against this rule, we may adduce the following: “_Who_ do I love so much?”--_Shakspeare._ “_Who_ should I meet the other day, but my old friend?”--_Spectator._ “Those, _who_ he thought true to his party.”--_Clarendon._

_Note_ 2. As substantives have no objective case, the subject or object of the energy or affection is distinguished by its place, which is after the verb, as “Achilles slew Hector,” where _Achilles_, the agent, precedes, and _Hector_, the subject of the action, follows the verb. Reverse this order, and the meaning is reversed, as “Hector slew Achilles.” Where the proper arrangement is not observed, ambiguity or misconstruction is frequently produced. Thus, when Pope says, Odyss. xix.

“And thus the son the fervent sire address’d,”

it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire address the son? A little attention would have prevented the ambiguity. If the sire addressed the son, the line should run thus,

“And thus his son the fervent sire address’d.”

If the son addressed the sire,

“And thus the son his fervent sire address’d.”

_Note_ 3.--An active intransitive verb sometimes governs the objective case of a noun, of the same or a kindred signification, as, “Let us run the race, which is set before us.” “If any man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death.”--_Bible._ The latter verb, however, though thus used, must not be employed in a transitive sense. It is an error, therefore, to say, “What have I sinned?”--_Bible._ It should be, “How?” or “In what?” Some intransitive verbs also, when used in a reflex sense, are joined to an objective case, as, “Then having shown his wounds, he’d sit him down.”--_Home’s Douglas._ This is a poetic licence, which, in a prose writer, would not be tolerated, unless in colloquial and very familiar language.

_Note_ 4.--The objective case should not, if possible, be separated from its verb. This rule is violated in the following sentence: “Becket could not better discover, than by attacking so powerful an interest, his resolution to maintain,” &c.--_Hume._ The regimen is here unnecessarily, and very inelegantly, separated from its verb.

RULE XIII.--Verbs signifying to ask, teach, offer, promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, and some others of like signification, are sometimes, especially in colloquial language, followed in the passive voice by an objective case.

_Note_ 1.--This rule seems to have escaped the attention of all our English grammarians, except Priestley, who observes, “that in some familiar phrases, the subject and object of our affirmation seem to be transposed.” This idiom, except in a very few instances, is not to be found in Latin, though it occurs pretty often in Greek: it therefore particularly merits the attention of the junior Latin scholar, lest in his Anglo-Latin translations it should betray him into an egregious solecism. “He allowed me great liberty,” turned passively, in concurrence with the Latin idiom, “great liberty was allowed me.” But we say also in English, “I was allowed great liberty.” “He promised (to) me a ship in five days,” passively, “a ship was promised me,” and “I was promised _her_ in five days.” “She would not accept the jewels, though they were offered to her by her mother,” or, “though she was offered _them_ by her mother.”

_Note_ 2.--After verbs of _giving_, _telling_, _sending_, _promising_, _offering_, and others of like signification, the thing is very generally placed before the person. In the time of Swift and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. We find authors of that period saying indiscriminately, “Give it us,” and “Give us it;” “Tell him it,” and “Tell it him;” “He promised me it,” and “He promised it me.” In Scotland these two modes of expression still obtain. In England they are now reduced under one general rule. We say, “Give it me,” “Tell it him,” “He sent it us.”

RULE XIV.--The verb _to be_ has the same case after it as it has before it, thus denoting that the subjects are identical, or that the one term is the predicate of the other, as, “It is he,” “You believed it to be him.” In the former example, _it_ is the nominative to the verb, the nominative case _he_ therefore follows the verb. In the latter, _it_ is the regimen of the verb _believed_, the verb _to be_ is therefore followed by the objective case.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as “it is _me_,” “it was _him_,” “I believed it to be _he_,” “_whom_ do men say that I am?” In the last example, the natural arrangement is, “men say that I am whom,” where, contrary to the rule, the nominative _I_ precedes, and the objective case _whom_ follows the verb.

_Note_ 2.--Priestley has asked, “Who would not say, ‘If it be me,’ rather than ‘If it be I?’” Our ears are certainly more familiar with the former than with the latter phraseology, and those who consult the ear only, may prefer it: but, where no advantage is gained by a departure from analogy, every deviation is at once idle and reprehensible.

_Note_ 3.--The verb _to be_ is called by logicians the _copula_, as connecting the subject with the predicate. Thus, when we say, “he is wise,” “they are learned,” _he_ and _they_ are the subjects; _wise_ and _learned_ the predicates. Now, it particularly deserves the attention of the classical scholar, that in English almost any verb may be used as a _copula_. This circumstance is the more worthy of his notice, as a conformity to the Latin idiom may lead him to reject expressions, which are unexceptionable, and to adopt others not strictly correct[125]. Thus we say, “it tastes good,” “he strikes hard,” “I remember right,” “he feels sick;” “we came late,” “they rise early,” “he drinks deep.” I am aware that the words _late_, _early_, are in such examples considered as adverbs. It appears to me they are adjectives,--that the idiom is truly English, and that all these expressions are perfectly analogous.

RULE XV.--When two verbs come together, the attribute signified by the one verb being the subject or object of the action, energy, or affection expressed by the other, the former is governed in the infinitive mood, as, “he taught me to read,” “I knew him to be.”

_Note_ 1.--The infinitive thus frequently supplies the place of an objective case after the verb, as it often stands for a nominative before it, as, “he loves to study,” or “he loves study.”

_Note_ 2.--In such examples as, “I read to learn,” where the latter phrase, though in the same form as _to study_, in the preceding example, has, notwithstanding, a different meaning, and cannot be resolved like it into “I read learning,” in such examples, as Tooke justly observes, the preposition _for_ denoting the object, and equivalent to _pour_ in French, is understood, as, “I read for to learn.” Our southern neighbours indeed, in these examples, never omit the casual term; and Trusler has not improperly observed, that, when the verb does not express the certain and immediate effect, but something remote and contingent, the words _in order to_, which are nearly equivalent to _for_, may be pertinently introduced as, “in order to acquire fame, men encounter the greatest dangers.”

_Note_ 3.--The verbs to _bid_, _dare_, _need_, _make_, _see_, _hear_, _feel_, _let_, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive, as, “He bade me go,” “I saw him do it.” It is to be observed, however, that in the language of Scripture the verb “to make” is often followed by _to_, as, “He maketh his sun _to_ rise.” The verb “to dare,” for “to challenge,” or “to defy,” is also construed with _to_, “I dare thee but _to_ breathe upon my love.”--_Shakspeare._

_Note_ 4.--Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often followed by an infinitive, as, “your _desire to improve_ will ultimately contribute to your happiness.” “Good men are _desirous to do_ good.”

_Note_ 5.--As the proper tense of the subsequent or secondary verb has, in certain cases, been a subject of dispute, it may be necessary to observe, that, when the simple attribute, or merely the primary idea expressed by the subsequent verb, is intended to be signified, it should then be put in the present tense: but when the idea of perfection or completion is combined with the primary idea, the subsequent verb should have that form, which is termed the perfect of the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule may, more intelligibly to the scholar, though less correctly, be thus expressed, that when the action or state, denoted by the subsequent verb, is contemporary with that of the primary verb, then the secondary verb must be put in the present tense; but when the action or state is prior to that expressed by the secondary verb, the latter must be put in the preterite tense. Usage, indeed, and the opinions of grammarians, are divided on this subject. But when nothing but usage can be pleaded in favour of one phraseology, and when reason concurs with usage to recommend another, it will not be questioned that the latter deserves the preference. Thus, we should say, “I expected to see you,” and not “I expected to have seen you;” because either the expectation and the seeing must be regarded as contemporary, or the former must be considered as prior to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the seeing be considered as contemporary with the expectation? Might not the former have been anterior to the latter? This is certainly possible; I may see a friend before I expect him. But though the sight, abstractedly considered, may precede the expectation, it cannot possibly, as an object of expectation, be prior to it. The idea involves absurdity, equal and analogous to the assertion, that the paper, on which I write, existed as an object of my perception, previously to my perceiving it. Agreeably to the second form of the rule here given, we find that the Latins very generally used the present of the infinitive, to express an action or state contemporary with the attribute of the primary verb. Thus, _dixit me scribere_, “he said that I wrote,” or “was writing,” that is, at the time of his saying so: _dixit me scripsisse_, “he said that I had written.”

I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted by the subsequent verb is implied, we should use the present of the infinitive. This phraseology should not only be used in all cases, where contemporary actions or states are to be signified, but may also be sometimes employed, where the secondary verb denotes something posterior to what is implied by the first. For though in no instance, where the simple action or state is to be expressed, should we use the sign of past or future time, yet for obvious reasons we may, and often do, employ the present infinitive, or simple name, to denote what is future, when the primary verb necessarily implies the futurity of its object. Thus, instead of saying, “he promised that he would pay,” where the constructive sign of futurity is used to denote the posteriority of the payment, we often say, “he promised to pay,” employing the present tense, synonymous with the simple name, as, “he promised payment.” The Latins also, though they almost universally, unless in colloquial language, preferred the former mode of expression, sometimes adopted the latter, as, _denegavit se dare_.--_Plaut._ _Jusjurandum pollicitus est dare._--_Id._ “He refused to give,” “he promised to give,” or “he promised giving,” the secondary verb expressing the act simply, and the time being necessarily implied.

_Note_ 6.--The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an absolute or independent sense, as, “to speak the truth, we are all liable to error.” “Not to trespass on your time, I will briefly explain the whole affair,” that is, “that I may speak,” “that I may not trespass.”

RULE XVI.--The imperative, agreeably to the general rule, agrees with its nominative, as,

“Love thou;” “listen ye,” or “you.”

_Note_ 1.--The imperative is frequently used, without its subject, that is, the nominative being suppressed, but the person or persons being perfectly understood. “And Samuel said to the people, Fear not,” _i.e._ “Fear ye not.”

_Note_ 2.--It is employed in the same way, in an absolute sense, without its subject. “Our ideas are movements of the nerves of sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting visible ideas, _suppose_ of a triangular piece of ivory.”--_Darwin._ I agree with Webster in thinking, that there is “a peculiar felicity” in such absolute forms of expression, the verb being thus applicable to any of the three persons, thus, “I may suppose,” “you may suppose,” “one may suppose.”

RULE XVII.--Participles are construed as the verbs to which they belong, as,

“_Teaching us_ to deny ungodliness.”

_Note_ 1.--The imperfect participle is frequently used like a substantive, and is, in such examples, of the same import with the infinitive of the verb; as, “they love reading,” _i.e._ “they love to read.” In some examples it becomes a real noun, and has a plural number, as, _the outgoings of the morning_.

_Note_ 2.--Lowth contends that, when the imperfect participle of a transitive verb is not preceded by the definite article, it properly governs the objective case, and is analogous to the Latin gerund, as, “much advantage will be derived from observing this rule;” in which example, _this rule_ is the regimen of the participle _observing_; and that, when the definite article precedes the participle, it becomes then a pure noun, and, therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. He therefore condemns this expression, “by the sending them the light of thy holy Spirit.” Some of our grammarians consider Lowth, in this instance, as fastidiously critical; but to me he appears chargeable with error. Let us examine the reasons, which the author adduces in support of his opinion.

In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, does usage justify the opinion of the author? He acknowledges the contrary: he even admits that there is not a single writer who does not violate this rule. Were it necessary, indeed, after this concession, it would be easy to evince, that not only our translators of the Bible, whose authority surely is of great weight, but also other writers of the highest eminence, employ the phraseology which he condemns.

Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to establish, favour perspicuity? The very reverse appears to me to be the case; for he admits an identity of sense in two distinct phraseologies, which are incontestably, in many instances, susceptible of different meanings. And, though this ambiguity may not be involved in every example, we have surely good reasons for repudiating a phraseology which may, in any instance, be liable to misconstruction. We are to prescribe, not what may be perspicuous in some instances, but what must be intelligible in all.

Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either by inserting the article before the participle and the preposition after it, or by the omission of both; in other words, that these phraseologies are equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may say either, “_by sending_ his Son into the world,” or “by the sending _of_ his Son.” Here, perhaps, the meaning is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of these forms of expression be adopted. But let us take another example, as, “he expressed the pleasure he had, in hearing the philosopher.” Now, according to Lowth, we may also say, “he expressed the pleasure he had, in the hearing of the philosopher.” Is there no difference of sentiment here? Are these expressions equivalent? The contrary must be obvious to the most inattentive reader. According to the former phraseology, the philosopher was heard--he is represented as passive; agreeably to the latter, he was active--he heard.

Again. “When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons and daughters.” Our translators have correctly exhibited the sentiment. The sons and daughters had given offence; they had provoked the Deity. But, if Lowth’s opinion be correct, the expression might be “because of provoking his sons and daughters;” a phrase which evidently conveys a very different idea.

Again. When it is said, “at the hearing of the ear, they will believe,” is this expression convertible, without violating the sense, into, “at hearing the ear they will believe?” Many more examples might be produced to prove that these phraseologies, which Lowth considers of the same import, are by no means equivalent. It appears, then, that perspicuity is not consulted by adopting this rule.

Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition before it, as correspondent to the Latin gerund, and therefore governing an objective case; but the participle preceded by an article, he considers as a substantive, and therefore incapable of any regimen. Now, as the author reasons from one language to another, we may pertinently ask, is not the Latin gerund a noun, a verbal substantive, not only having the form, and the inflexions of a noun, but governed like it, by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions, itself likewise governing the case of its verb? This position, were this the place for it, we could easily prove, notwithstanding the objections which Scioppius, Vossius, with some other grammarians, have alleged against it. Nay, whatever theory be adopted respecting the nature of the gerund, there cannot exist a doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman literature, the verbal nouns in _io_ governed an accusative, like the verbs whence they were derived. _Quid tibi curatio est hanc rem_, is one example from Plautus out of many, which might be produced[126]. That the supines also were, in truth, substantives admitting a regimen, is equally clear: _Difficile dictu_ was originally _difficile in dictu_; and _misit oratum opem_, _misit ad oratum opem_. Nor can the structure of the future infinitive passive be so satisfactorily resolved, notwithstanding a few repugnant examples, as on this supposition: _Dixit libros lectum iri_ is resolved into _dixit (id) iri ad lectum libros_, where _libros_ is the regimen of the verbal noun _lectum_.

Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and verbal nouns in _io_, though in form and inflexion substantives, governed an accusative case. It matters not, indeed, to the point in question, what was the practice of the ancients in this respect; nor should I, therefore, have dwelt so long on this subject, did I not conceive, that the very authority to which Dr. Lowth seems to appeal, militates against him; and that the very language, to which in this, as in most other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had nouns governing cases, like the verbs from which they came.

From the preceding observations, I think it must appear, that the rule given by Dr. Lowth, is neither sanctioned by general usage, nor friendly to perspicuity; while the violation of it is perfectly reconcilable with the practice of the Roman writers, if their authority can, in this question, be deemed of any value.

Having attempted to prove the invalidity of Lowth’s argument, and the impropriety of his rule, as establishing an identity of meaning, where a difference must exist, I would submit to the candid and judicious critic the following remarks.

The participle in _ing_ has either an active or passive signification; its import must, therefore, be determined by the judgment of the reader, or by explanatory adjections. Whatever, then, is calculated to remove all misconstruction, and to render its import clear and unequivocal, merits attention. Consistently, then, with some of the examples already adduced, I am inclined to suggest, that, when the noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing something, the preposition should be inserted, as, “in the hearing of the philosopher,” that is, _the philosopher hearing_; and that, when the noun represents the subject of an action, or what is suffering, the preposition should be omitted, as, “in hearing the philosopher,” or _the philosopher being heard_. An attention to this rule will, I conceive, in most cases prevent ambiguity.

If it should be said that I have admitted Lowth’s phraseologies, I answer, it is true; but with this difference, that he considers them as equivalent, and I as diametrically opposite. I observe, likewise, that, though I prefer the suppression of the article when the participle is not followed by _of_, and its insertion when it is followed by the preposition, it is not because I perceive any impropriety in the other phraseology, but because, since the publication of Lowth’s Grammar, it has been less employed; and because also it less forcibly marks the distinction, which I have recommended. That it has the sanction of good authority, is unquestionable; and that it is not inconsistent with analogy, will still further appear from the following note.

_Note_ 3.--The participle in _ing_ is construed like a noun, governing the genitive case, and, at the same time, having the regimen of its proper verb, as, “Much depends on Richard’s observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it.” In this example, the words _Richard’s_ and _his_ are in the genitive case, governed by the participles _observing_ and _neglecting_, while these participles, having here every character of a noun, admit the objective case. This form of expression has been received as unexceptionable; the following phraseology, however, has been censured, though, in truth, precisely analogous to the one now exemplified: “Much depends on the rule’s being observed, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.” “Here,” said a certain writer, “is a noun with a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without any other noun to govern it; for _being observed_ and _being neglected_ are not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition _of_, before the noun or pronoun.”

I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this objection, in thinking, that the expression is not only sanctioned by good usage, but is also agreeable to analogy, and preventive of circumlocution. The objector, indeed, does not seem to have been aware, that his opinion is at variance with itself; and that the reason, which he assigns for rejecting this phraseology, would, with equal force, conclude against another mode of expression, which he himself approves. For he would have no objection to say, “Much depends on his observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it.” Now let us try whether this sentence be not liable to the same objection as the other. In the former, he says, you cannot possibly supply the place of the possessive case, by the preposition _of_ before the noun or pronoun. This is true; for it would not be English to say, “Much depends on the being observed of the rule; and error will be the consequence of the being neglected of it.” But will his own approved phraseology admit this? Let us see; “Much depends on the observing of him of the rule, and error will be the consequence of the neglecting of him of it.” Were the example simpler, the argument would be equally strong; as, “Much depends on your pupil’s composing, but more on his reading frequently.” This sentence, the author alluded to, would have approved. Let us try if it can be resolved by _of_: “Much depends on the composing of your pupil, but more on the reading of him frequently.”

The author’s argument, then, if it prove anything, proves too much; it cannot, therefore, have any weight.

In addition to these observations, I would remark, that the writer’s argument involves another inconsistency. He admits that the participle in _ing_ may be thus construed; for he approves the phrases, “his observing the rule,” and “his neglecting it.” Why then does he reject “his being” and “its being?” for the past or perfect participles _observed_ and _neglected_ have no share in the government, _rule’s_ and _it’s_ being under the regimen of the participle in _ing_. In fact, then, the phrase seems no more objectionable than “his being a great man did not make him a happy man;” which our author would admit to be wholly unexceptionable.

Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle similar to that, the absurdity of which we have been attempting to expose, have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one which seems less correct. Many writers, instead of saying, “his being smitten with the love of Orestilla was the cause of his murdering his son,” would say, “he being smitten with the love of Orestilla was the cause.” This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language. For, ask what was the cause; and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be _he_; whereas the meaning is, that not _he_, but _his being smitten_, was the cause of his murder.

“This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of Gloucester with the murder of Prince Edward.” “This,” says Mr. Baker, very justly, “is, in my opinion, a very uncouth way of speaking, though much used by ignorant people, and often affected by those who are not ignorant.” The writer should have said, “for Hall’s charging.” “His words being applicable to the common mistake of our age induce me to transcribe them.” Here I agree with the same writer in thinking, that it would be better to consider _words_ as in the genitive case plural, governed by the participle, as _Hall’s_ in the preceding example, and join _his words’ being applicable_, equivalent to _the applicability of his words_, with the verb singular; thus, “his words’ being applicable to the common mistake of our age, induces me to transcribe them.” A ridiculous partiality in favour of the Latin idiom, which in this case is not so correct as our own, not exhibiting the sentiment with equal precision, has given birth to this phraseology, which in many cases conveys not the intended idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, “What think you of my horse’s running to-day?” it is implied, that the horse did actually run. If it is said, “What think you of my horse running to-day?” it is intended to ask, whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious, that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies, to express both meanings.

_Note_ 4.--This participle is sometimes used absolutely, in the same manner as the infinitive mood, as, “this conduct, _viewing it in the most favourable light_, reflects discredit on his character.” Here the participle is made absolute, and is equivalent to the infinitive in that state, as, “to view it in the most favourable light.” Both these modes of expression are resolvable, either by the hypothetical, or the perfective conjunctions; thus, “if we view it in the most favourable light.” “To confess the truth, I have no merit in the case;” _i.e._ “that I may confess.”

RULE XVIII.--A noun or pronoun joined to a participle, its case being dependent on no word in the sentence, is put in the nominative.

_Note_ 1.--This rule will be perfectly understood by the classical scholar, when we say, that the absolute case in English is the nominative. Thus, “We being exceedingly tossed the next day, they lightened the ship.” The pronoun of the first person, joined to the participle, _being_, is neither the nominative to any verb, nor is it connected with any word, of which it can be the regimen. It is therefore put in the nominative case.

_Note_ 2.--This rule is violated in such examples as the following, “Solomon made as wise proverbs as anybody has done, _him_ only excepted, who was a much wiser man than Solomon.”--_Tillotson._

“For only in destroying I find ease To my relentless thoughts; and, _him_ destroy’d, Or won to what may work his utter loss, For whom all this was made, all this will soon Follow,”--_Milton._

This seems to be the only example in which the poet has transgressed this rule; and in several instances, in which he has observed it, Bentley would erroneously substitute the objective case.

RULE XIX.--Prepositions are joined with the objective case, or govern nouns and pronouns in the accusative, as, “he ran to me,” “he was loved by us.”

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such expressions as these, “Who servest thou under?” “Who do you speak to?” for the syntactical arrangement is, “thou servest under who?” “thou speakest to who?” instead of “under whom?” “to whom?”

_Note_ 2.--The preposition is frequently separated from its regimen, as, “Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with,” _i.e._ “with whom I am much delighted.”

_Note_ 3.--The prepositions _to_ and _for_ are often understood, as, “he gave me a book,” “he told me the news:” _i.e._ “he gave to me,” “he told to me.”

Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the pronouns, _me_, _thee_, &c., may be considered to be in the dative case, as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of their respective pronouns, and in their form include _to_, as, “woe is to me.” This phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the same as, “wae is me,” in which _me_ is a dative case.

The preposition _by_ is also, in a few colloquial expressions, omitted, as, “he went across the bridge,” “he crossed the bridge,” for “he crossed (the river) by the bridge.”

_Note_ 4.--A preposition, following a verb, constituting with it what has been termed a compound active verb, is sometimes suppressed. We say, “he hoped for a reward,” “you wondered at his courage.” Addison, Steele, and Johnson, with several other reputable writers, say, “It is to be hoped,” instead of “to be hoped for;” and Johnson very generally says, “It is not to be wondered,” for “not to be wondered at.” The latter form of expression seems to have been adopted, in order to avoid the abrupt and inelegant conclusion of the clause, especially when followed by the word _that_.

_Note_ 5.--The prepositions _in_, _on_, _for_, and _from_, are often understood before nouns of time and place; thus, “this day,” “next month,” “last year,” are often used elliptically for “on this day,” “in next month,” “in last year.” We say, also, “He was banished England,” _i.e._ “_from_ England.”

Care, however, should be taken that the omission create no ambiguity. If we say, “He was deaf some years before he died,” referring to a temporary deafness, and a point of time at which it occurred, the expression is not improper, though the meaning might be more clearly expressed; but if we intend to signify a continued deafness, we ought to say, “for” or “during some years.”

_Note_ 6.--The preposition is improperly omitted in the following line of Pope’s:

“And virgins smiled at what they blush’d before.”

It should be, according to the rules of syntax, “smiled at what they blushed at before,” both verbs requiring _at_ after them, thus, “they smiled at that, at which they blushed before.”

_Note_ 7.--Prepositions should be placed as near as possible to each of the words, whose relation they express. The following sentence from Hume is, in this respect, faulty: “The ignorance of the age in mechanical arts, rendered the progress very slow of this new invention.” It should be, “the progress of this new invention.” The following sentence from Johnson, is, for the same reason, chargeable with faulty arrangement: “The country first dawned, that illuminated the world, and beyond which the arts cannot be traced of civil society or domestic life.”--_Rasselas._ It should be, “the arts of civil society or domestic life cannot be traced.” Priestley has censured the following clause from Harris, “being in no sense capable of either intention or remission.” If it be considered, however, that the word _either_ properly means “the one or the other,” and in truth denotes the subject, being, therefore, in strict propriety, the regimen of the preposition, the arrangement of Harris, though now not so common as the other, will not appear exceptionable. Nay, whatever may be the future decision of usage, that great arbitress of all language, (for at present she is divided,) Harris’s arrangement seems more conformable to the strict meaning of the words, as well as to Priestley’s own rule, than that, which the latter recommends; thus, “capable of either (_i.e._ of the one or of the other), intension, or remission.”

RULE XX.--Adverbs have no government.

_Note_ 1.--They are sometimes improperly used for adjectives, as, “After those wars of which they hoped for a soon and prosperous issue.”--_Sidney._ “A soon issue” is not English; an adverb cannot agree with a substantive; it should be “a speedy and prosperous issue.” Such expressions likewise as the following, though not destitute of authority, are exceedingly inelegant, and irreconcilable with analogy: “the then ministry,” for “the ministry of that time;” “the above discourse,” for “the preceding discourse.”

_Note_ 2.--They are sometimes used like substantives, as, “a little while,” for “in a little time,” or “for a little time.” “Worth while,” “some how,” “any how,” “any where,” are examples of the same kind.

_Note_ 3.--The adverbs _whence_, _thence_, _hence_, are equivalent to, “from which place,” “from that place,” “from this place;” _from whence_, _from thence_, _from hence_, are therefore chargeable with redundancy.

_Note_ 4.--_Never_ is sometimes erroneously used for _ever_, as, “they might be extirpated, were they never so many.” It should be, “ever so many,” _i.e._ “how many soever.” “Who will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he _never_ so sweetly.” It should be, “_ever_ so sweetly;” _i.e._ “however sweetly,” or “how sweetly soever.”

_Note_ 5.--_Ever_ is likewise sometimes improperly used for _never_, as, “I seldom or ever see him now.” It should be, “seldom or _never_,” the speaker intending to say, “that rarely, or rather at no time, does he see him now;” not “rarely,” or “at any time.”

_Note_ 6.--Priestley remarks, that the French always place their adverbs immediately after their verbs, which order, he observes, by no means suits the English idiom. “His government gave courage to the English barons to carry farther their opposition.”--_Hume._ It would be better, “to carry their opposition farther.” “Edward obtained a dispensation from his oath, which the barons had compelled Gaveston to take, that he would abjure for ever the realm;” better “the realm for ever.”

_Note_ 7.--The adverb is generally placed between the auxiliary verb and the participle, as, “this is perfectly understood.” When there are more auxiliaries than one, the same author observes, that the adverb should be placed after the first. This rule, however, is by no means universally followed; for many of our best writers employ a different arrangement, and, I think, with great propriety; as, “this will be perfectly understood,” where the adverb follows both auxiliaries. The place of the adverb may, in general, be ascertained, by considering what word it is intended to qualify: and, in the last example, it should be closely connected with _understood_. But more on this subject in the following note.

_Note_ 8.--The adverb, as its name imports, is generally placed close to the word, which it modifies or affects: its force, therefore, very much depends upon its position. Inattention to the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently the cause of much obscurity and misconception. To this inattention we may ascribe the ambiguity in the following sentence: “He was not honoured with this reward, but with the approbation of the people.” This sentence may imply, either that he was honoured with this reward, not without the approbation of the people; or that he was not honoured with this reward, but was honoured with the approbation of the people. The latter is the meaning intended. It should therefore be, “he was honoured, not with this reward, but with the approbation of the people.” By this arrangement the sentiment is correctly exhibited--the two subjects, reward and approbation, are perspicuously contrasted, and while the former is negatived, the latter is affirmed[127].

_Note_ 9.--Lowth observes that “the adverb should be for the most part placed before adjectives, and after verbs;” thus, “he was excessively modest,” “he fought bravely.” This is, indeed, the general arrangement; but it admits many exceptions. In no case are writers so apt to err as in the position of the word _only_. Its place, in my opinion, is after the substantive to which it refers, or which it exclusively implies, and before the attributive. In the following sentence of Steele’s, the collocation is faulty: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect which intimates his thoughts were not only entertained with the joys with which he was surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude, and divine pleasure.” This collocation of the two adverbs implies that his thoughts were something more than entertained: whereas it is the author’s intention to say, that his thoughts were entertained with something more than joys. The sentence, therefore, should proceed thus: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect, which intimates, that his thoughts were entertained not with the joys only, with which he was surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”[128]

When Addison says (_Spec._ No. 412), “By greatness I do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of a whole view,” the question naturally occurs, what does he more than mean? It is evident that, agreeably to this arrangement, the adverb refers to _mean_, exclusively of all other attributes or actions, and being prefaced by a negative, implies “that he does something more than mean.” In this criticism I concur with Blair, who has expressed his disapprobation of this arrangement.

Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb after _bulk_, it would have still been wrong. For if he had said, “I do not mean the bulk only,” then the adverb, following a noun substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every other, and the clause being negative, the question would be, what does he mean more than the bulk? Is it the colour, the beauty, or what else?

Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not mean one thing, the word _only_ should have followed the name of that thing, whether its designation was simple or complex. He should, therefore, have said, “the bulk of any single object only, but the largeness of a whole view.” According to this arrangement, the word _only_ refers, as it ought, to “the bulk of any single object” as one idea; and the question occurs, what does he mean more than the bulk of any single object? to which the answer follows, “the largeness of a whole view.” It may, however, at the same time be observed that, consistently with the practice of some of our best writers, who place the adverb before its subject, there seems no impropriety here in saying, “I do not mean only,” _i.e._ “one thing,” “the bulk of a single object, but the largeness of a whole view.”

“The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him,” says Gibbon, “that by exploits of the same nature, by the defeat of the Nemean lion, and the slaughter of the wild boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian Hercules had acquired a place among the gods, and an immortal memory among men.” “_They only_ forgot to observe that, in the first ages of society, a successful war against savage animals is one of the most beneficial labours of heroism.” In the beginning of the latter sentence the adverb _only_ is misplaced. As it stands, the meaning is that they were the only persons who forgot: it should be “_only_ they forgot to observe;” _i.e._ “one thing they forgot,” namely, “to observe.” To this erroneous collocation in Gibbon, I shall oppose a similar example from Pope, in which the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to Hughes, speaking of the compliments which this gentleman had paid to him on his translation of Homer, he acquaints him, that he should be ashamed to attempt returning these compliments; one thing, however, he would observe, namely, that he esteemed Mr. Hughes too much not to be pleased with the compliments which he had received from him. His words, therefore, are, “I should be ashamed to offer at saying any of those civil things, in return to your obliging compliments, in regard to my translation of Homer: _only_ I have too great a value for you not to be pleased with them;” where the word _only_ introduces the clause, and is equivalent to “one thing is true,” or “thus much (_tantum_), I say, I have too great a value,” &c. Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it precedes the pronoun, does not refer to it; and that Mr. Pope’s collocation of it is perfectly correct, to express the sentiment, which he intended. Had he said, “I only,” the adverb would have referred to the pronoun, and implied that he was the only person who valued. Had he intended to say, that he merely entertained an esteem for him, but could not manifest it, then the presence of the auxiliary would have been necessary, and he would have expressed himself thus, “I do only entertain too great an esteem for you;” that is, “I do only (one thing) entertain too great an esteem.” Had he said, “I have only too great a value for you,” it would be properly opposed to, “and not too little.” Had he said, “I have too great a value only,” then _value_ would be contrasted with some other sentiment, as when one says, he “has wealth only, but not virtue,” for example, or any other acquirement. As a violation of this rule, I adduce also the following expression of a reviewer. “We only discharge our duty to the public;” a declaration which, strictly interpreted, means “we are the only persons who discharge.” It should be, “we do only (one thing) discharge our duty;” for the writer intended to say, that he did nothing but discharge his duty to the public[129]. In justification of such inaccuracies, it is impertinent to plead, that a little attention will prevent misconception. It is the business of every author to guard his reader, as far as the language in which he writes will permit, from the possibility of misconstruction, and to render that attention to the language unnecessary. Quintilian’s maxim cannot be too often repeated to those who, by such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable ambiguity[130].

The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and also by Baker, in his “Remarks.” “Theism,” says Shaftesbury, “can only be opposed to polytheism or atheism.” He ought to have said, observes Baker, “Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism.” Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with the remarker. I am inclined, however, to differ from both; and think, that the sentence should run thus: “Theism can be opposed to polytheism only, or atheism;” where the adverb _only_ refers to the noun immediately preceding, and is understood to the other, implying, that these two systems of belief are the only creeds to which theism can be opposed. If this be not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite rule can be given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be placed either before or after the substantive, to which it refers, then precision becomes impossible, and we may say, “_he only_” or “_only he_” to express the same sentiment; which collocations, I have already shown, denote ideas materially different. But, if there be a definite and precise rule for the position of this word, and if the sense be different, according to the collocation of the adverb, then I think it will appear, that it ought to be subjoined to the substantive or pronoun to which it refers; and this opinion is supported by the authority of Blair himself, in the examples which I have just now adduced. For why, unless on this principle, does he contend that the word _only_ should be placed after _the bulk of a single object_? If the adverb then be, in this example, rightly placed after the substantive or complex name, to which it refers, it ought to have the same position assigned to it in every similar instance. That the adverb, in the last example, refers to “polytheism,” there can be no question; it should therefore follow, and not precede, it.

I am well aware, that many examples may be produced, wherein, with an arrangement different from that here recommended, the sense would, notwithstanding, be perfectly clear; and, perhaps, Blair’s collocation, in the last example, may be adduced as an instance. But when a rule, conducive to perspicuity, is once established, every unnecessary deviation from it should be studiously avoided, or, at least, not wantonly adopted.

The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies that theism is capable of nothing, but of being opposed to polytheism, or atheism; “Theism can only (one thing, namely) be opposed to polytheism or atheism;” where it is evident that _only_ refers to _be opposed_, agreeably to the rule now given. In the same manner, if I say, “he was only great,” it is implied, that he was nothing but great, the adverb being placed before the attributive, to which it refers. Hence the question naturally is, what was he not besides? The answer may be, “not good,” “not wise,” “not learned.” Were the adverb placed after the pronoun, it would imply, that “he was the only person who was great.”[131]

I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, in all cases, preclude ambiguity; but whenever it becomes doubtful, whether the adverb is intended to affect the preceding substantive, or the following attributive, a different form of expression may be adopted, and the use of the auxiliary, along with the principal verb, will, in many instances, ensure perspicuity. This expedient, however, cannot always be employed. If we say, “The manufacturer only was prosperous,” it may be uncertain, whether the adverb is to restrict the predicate “prosperous” to the manufacturer, implying that he was the only prosperous man, or to the verb expressing past time, signifying that he was then, but is not now prosperous. If the former be the meaning intended, we may say, “he was the only prosperous man;” if the latter, we may say, “the manufacturer was once,” or “was then, the only prosperous man.”

It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if authors had adopted one uniform practice, placing the adverb constantly, either before or after its subject, whether a substantive or an attributive[132]. But, where usage is so divided, and where the adoption of a new and general rule would be now liable to insuperable objections, all that can be successfully attempted is, in accommodation to existing circumstances, to reduce the evil within narrow limits, if we cannot, by any precise rule, entirely remove it. With this view we would recommend, that when the adverb refers not to a word, but to a sentence or clause, it be placed at the beginning of that sentence or clause; where it refers to a predicate, it precede the predicating term; and when it has a reference to a subject, it follow its name or description. An observation, however, already made, may be here repeated, namely, that in the last case, a different collocation may often be adopted without the risk of ambiguity, and even with advantage to the structure of the sentence.

_Note_ 10.--Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally placed before the adjective to which they refer. This rule, however, admits a few exceptions. The adverb _enough_ is always placed after its adjective, as, “the reward was small enough.” The proper position of this adverb, indeed, seems to be immediately after the adjective; it is frequently, however, placed at some distance from it, as, “a large house enough.” Usage is, indeed, somewhat divided on this point, Mr. Baker, and a few others, pleading for the following arrangement, “a large enough house.” The former collocation, however, seems far the more general; and is recommended by that rule, by which the substantive and adjective should be placed in juxta-position, or as near as possible to each other. The latter is defended by the principle, that the qualifying adverb should be placed close to the adjective, whose signification it modifies. This collocation is generally, however, pronounced a Scotticism; but it is not peculiar to Scotch writers.

RULE XXI.--Conjunctions have no government.

_Note_ 1.--In giving this rule, I differ from all other grammarians, who have erroneously, as I conceive, assigned them a regimen. Some conjunctions, says Lowth, govern the indicative, and some the subjunctive mood. This I affirm without hesitation to be a great mistake; for not a single example, I venture to assert, can be produced, in which the verb is divested of its indicative form, in consequence of its being subjoined to any conjunction. The Latins had a form of the verb, which they properly enough denominated the subjunctive mood; because, where the meaning was unconditionally assertive, they employed this form, if the clause was preceded by some particular conjunctive or adverbial term. Thus, when they said, _adeo benevolus erat, ut omnes eum amarent_, “he was so benevolent, that all men loved him,” though the assertion in the latter clause, be evidently unconditional, as the English shows, they changed the indicative into another form, because the verb is preceded by the conjunction _ut_. No similar example can be produced in English.

Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, conditionality, or contingency is implied, the mood should be subjunctive; if certainty, or something determinate and absolute be signified, the verb should be indicative. Now surely, if the sense require a form different from the indicative, the verb cannot be said to be under the government of the conjunction; for the verb assumes that form, not because preceded by the conjunctive term, or because it is under its government, but because the sentiment to be expressed requires that phraseology. Whether the conditional, or what Lowth terms the subjunctive, be a distinct form of the verb, or only an elliptical mode of expression, we have already inquired. See p. 126.

_Note_ 2.--Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference between prepositions and conjunctions is, that the former couple words, and the latter sentences. This opinion is erroneous; for conjunctions frequently couple words, as in the following example: “A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character.” Here it is not implied, that “a man of wisdom is a perfect character;” but “a man of wisdom combined with virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue.” That conjunctions, indeed, do not couple at all, in that sense, at least, in which grammarians have understood the term, Mr. Tooke seems to have incontestably proved. That they sometimes couple sentences, or that instances may be produced, in which Harris’s definition will appear correct, the following example will serve as an evidence: “You, and I, and John rode to town;” _i.e._ “you rode,” “and I rode,” “and John rode.” But to assert, that this is their distinctive property, is to affirm what may be disproved by numberless examples. If we say, “two and two are four.” Are two four, and two four? “A B, B C, and C A, form a triangle.” Is A B a triangle? or B C? or C A? “John and Mary are a handsome couple.” Is John a couple? and Mary a couple? The common theory, therefore, is false; nor is it to be doubted, that conjunctions are, in respect to signification, and were originally in regard to their regimen, verbs, or words compounded of nouns and attributives. In explaining them, however, I divided them, as the reader may remember, into the several classes of adversative, concessive, conditional, &c. This I did, not only in conformity to general usage, and that he might not be a stranger to the names assigned to them; but likewise for this reason, that, though they originally formed no distinct species of words, but were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and verbs, they have now assumed another character, and are construed in a different manner. It is necessary, however, that he should be acquainted not only with their present use, but also with their primitive import, and classification.

How these words were degraded from their original rank, and deemed insignificant, while some, perhaps, lost their syntactical power, is a matter, I conceive, of no difficult inquiry. For, when the verbs, to which any of these words belonged, became obsolete, the words themselves, thus separated from their parent stock, and stripped of that consequence and authority which they thence derived, their extraction becoming daily more dubious, and their original value more obscure, sunk by degrees into inferior note, and at last dwindled into comparative insignificance. Besides, many of them, doubtless, were transplanted into our language without the _radices_; their etymology, therefore, being little known, their primitive character, and real import, would soon be involved in increasing darkness.

It is to be considered, also, that those who have dispensed the laws of grammar in our language, or assumed the office of critics, have been generally such as, though perhaps sufficiently conversant in Greek and Latin, were entirely unacquainted with the Northern languages. Accustomed, therefore, to render the conjunctions and prepositions in Greek or Latin, by synonymous English words, and unacquainted with the true character of these vernacular terms, their _etymons_ being obsolete, or having never been used in our language, it is easy to conceive how they would naturally assign to the English words the same character and the same name which were affixed to the synonymous Latin terms. Nay, this has been so much the case, that we have ascribed an ambiguous character to several English words, referring them now to one class, then to another, merely because they agree in signification with certain Greek and Latin terms, which have been severally referred by classical grammarians to different orders. That the word _whether_ has uniformly, in our language, the same import and the same character, denoting “which of the two,” there can be no doubt; yet, because this word answers sometimes to _an_, _anne_, _num_, and sometimes to _uter_, grammarians and lexicographers have accounted it both a conjunction and a pronoun. _Utrum_ in Latin has shared the same fate. So far, indeed, has this spirit been carried, that we will not admit _except_, _according_, _concerning_, _respecting_, with many similar terms, to be verbs or participles, because _præter_, _secundum_, _de_, are prepositions. It is from this propensity to assimilate ours with the Latin language, that all these errors have arisen.

That the words now termed prepositions and conjunctions were originally verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, Tooke has, in my judgment, incontrovertibly proved. This being admitted, it appears to me highly probable, that they were primitively construed as such, joined either with the nominative or the objective case, as the verbs had either a transitive or intransitive meaning; and that they were followed by either single words or clauses. This, however, is merely conjecture, founded indeed in the nature of the words, but not supported by any evidence. In process of time, in consequence of that assimilation which naturally takes place between a living language and a dead one, much read, much written, and much admired, these words, when their origin became obscure, would, as I have remarked, be divested of their primitive character, and be considered as belonging to those classes, to which the synonymous Latin words were referred. Hence their regimen would likewise undergo a change. It would appear awkward and vicious to say now, “I saw nobody but he;” is not improbable, however, that the mode of expression was originally, “I saw nobody, be out he,” _i.e._ “he be out.” But I am now indulging in conjecture, the very error which chiefly has misled us in our grammatical researches. One thing, however, is certain, that several words, which were originally employed as prepositions or conjunctions indifferently, have now acquired a more fixed character, and are used but seldom in a double capacity. Of this the word _without_ is an example. Thus, it was not unusual to say, “without you go, I will not,” where the term of exclusion, though in truth a preposition prefixed to a clause, was considered as a conjunction synonymous with _nisi_. This usage, unless in conversation, is now almost entirely relinquished; and the term _without_ is now generally employed as a preposition, being prefixed to single words. It is likewise certain that in respect to signification there is no difference between conjunctions and prepositions: _vidi neminem nisi eum_, is equivalent to _vidi neminem præter eum_. In like manner, “I saw nobody but him,” is synonymous with “I saw nobody besides him;” in which examples the conjunctions _nisi_ and _but_ are perfectly synonymous with _præter_ and _besides_, which are termed prepositions.

It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunctions be alike verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, and if many prepositions and conjunctions be in point of meaning identical, what forms the ground of distinction between them? It is simply this, that the former are prefixed to single words only, as nouns and pronouns, or to clauses involving an infinitive mood[133], the infinitive being strictly the name of the verb; and that they have a regimen; while the latter are prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. This is the only distinction between prepositions and conjunctions as discriminated in modern use. Their original character is sufficiently established by Mr. Tooke.

I have said that some of these words have, in our language, an ambiguous character, being employed both as prepositions and conjunctions. Of this the word _than_ is an example. Priestley seems to consider it as a preposition, and pleads in favour of the following expression, “you are taller than him,” not “taller than he.” “Since it is allowed,” says the Doctor, “that the oblique case should follow prepositions, and since the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle _than_, have certainly between them the force of a preposition, expressing the relation of one word to another, they ought to require the oblique case of the pronoun following, so that, _greater than me_ will be more grammatical than _greater than I_.” Here I cannot concur with the learned author. The same argument would prove that _major quam me_, would be more grammatical than _major quam ego_; a conclusion which is opposed by universal authority. The truth is, _than_ must be either a conjunction or a preposition, or both. If a conjunction, it can have no government, any more than the Latin _quam_; unless we confound the distinction which has been just now explained, and is universally admitted, namely, that conjunctions are distinguished from prepositions, by their having no government. If it be a preposition, no argument is necessary to prove that it may be joined with an objective case; for such is the distinguishing character of prepositions. If it be either a preposition or a conjunction, it follows, that it may be construed either with or without a regimen. Lowth, with greater propriety, considers it as a conjunction; and Campbell, in his “Rhetoric,” recommends this usage as the only means of preventing that ambiguity, which necessarily arises from the employment of this word as a preposition only. For, if we use it as a preposition, we should say, “I love you better than him,” whether it be meant “I love you better than I love him,” or “I love you better than he does.” By using it as a conjunction, the ambiguity is prevented. For, if the former sentiment be implied, we say, “I love you better than him,” _i.e._ “than I love him;” if the latter, we say, “I love you better than he,” _i.e._ “than he loves you.” Whatever may have been the original character or syntax of this word, since usage is now divided, some writers employing it as a conjunction, and others as a preposition, the grammarian may, consistently with his duty, plead for that usage only, which prevents ambiguity.

The rule here recommended is generally violated, when _than_ is joined with the relative pronoun, as, “Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned.” “Beelzebub, than whom, Satan excepted, none higher sat.” Salmon has attempted to account for this almost universal phraseology, by saying, that the expression is elliptical, being the same as, “than compared with whom.” This explanation is forced and unnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple fact is, that the word _than_ was formerly used as a preposition, and, I believe, more frequently than it is now. Hence, doubtless, arose this phraseology.

RULE XXII.--Derivatives are generally construed like their primitives; as, “it was a happy thing _for_ this country, that the Pretender was defeated;” or “happily _for_ this country the Pretender was defeated.” Thus also, “to compare _with_,” and “in comparison _with_ riches;”--“to depend _on_,” and his “dependence on the court.”

RULE XXIII.--One negative destroys another; or two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative; as, “nor have I no money, which I can spare;” that is, “I have money, which I can spare.”--“Nor was the king unacquainted with his designs;” that is, “he was acquainted.”

_Note_ 1.--Here our language accords with the Latin. In Greek and French, two negatives render the negation stronger.

_Note_ 2.--This rule is violated in such examples as this, “Nor is danger ever apprehended in such a government, no more than we commonly apprehend danger from thunder or earthquakes.” It should be _any more_.

RULE XXIV.--Interjections are joined with the objective case of the pronoun of the first person, and with the nominative of the pronoun of the second, as, “ah me,” “oh me,” “ah thou wretch,” “O thou who dwellest.”

_Syntax_ being that part of grammar, which teaches rules not only for the concord and government, but also for the order of words in clauses and sentences, I shall subjoin the few following brief directions for the guidance of the scholar, respecting arrangement.

1st. The collocation should never invert the natural order of events, or violate the principles of reason and metaphysical propriety. It is obvious, for example, that no person can write, who cannot read. The ability to do the former necessarily implies a capacity to do the latter. It is preposterous, therefore, to say with Addison, “There will be few in the next generation, who will not at least be able to write and read.” He should have said, “to read and write.” “He was the son of a mother, who had nursed him with maternal tenderness, and had borne him in an hour of the deepest affliction.” The natural order of events should have dictated the reverse arrangement. There would be a manifest impropriety in saying “Our father is well, and alive;” the former state necessarily implying the latter. In the following passage, however, it is perhaps excusable, the answers particularly corresponding to the questions: Joseph says to his brothers, “Is your father well? The old man, of whom ye spake, is he yet alive?” They answer, “Thy servant, our father, is in good health; he is yet alive.” This error was termed by the ancient grammarians _hysteron proteron_; and, though not so palpably as in the preceding examples, it occurs much more frequently than an inattentive reader is apt to imagine.

2nd. The English language admits but few inflexions, and therefore little or no room for variety of arrangement. The connection of one word with another is not to be perceived, as in Greek and Latin, by correspondence of termination, but by relative position. This renders it indispensably necessary, that those words which are intimately related by sense one to another, should be closely connected by collocation. “The cunning of Hannibal was too powerful for the Pergamenians, who by the same kind of stratagem had frequently obtained great victories at land.” The relative here, by its position, must be understood as referring to the Pergamenians; whereas it is intended to refer to Hannibal. The relative clause, therefore, should have followed the name of the Carthaginian. “His picture, in distemper, of calumny, borrowed from the description of one painted by Apelles, was supposed to be a satire on that cardinal.”--_Walpole._ The error here is obvious. He should have said, “His picture of calumny.” “It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which nothing can protect us against, but the good providence of our heavenly Father.”--_Sherlock._ Here the grammatical antecedent is _treasures_; but it is intended to be _accidents_. The relative is removed from its proper subject.

3rd. As the converse of the preceding rule, it may be observed, that those words should be separated, which in juxta-position may, at first sight, or first hearing, possibly convey a meaning which the speaker or writer does not intend. “I, like a well-bred man, who is never disposed to mortify or to offend, praised both sorts of food.” As the two introductory words are capable of two meanings, would it not be better to say, “Like a well-bred man ... I praised both sorts of food.” I am aware, that the other collocation is preferable, where a particular stress is to be laid on the principal subject; but ambiguity is an error, which should be studiously avoided, and the meaning should not be left to the determination of a comma.

4th. From the preceding rules, it follows as a corollary, that no clause should be so placed in a sentence, as to be referable either to what precedes, or what follows. “The knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a compass, and himself in a manner shut out of his own house, _on the death of his mother_, ordered all the apartments to be flung open.” The clause in italics is ambiguously placed.

5th. When each of two arrangements is equally favourable to perspicuity, and equally consistent with metaphysical propriety, that should be preferred which is the more agreeable to the ear.

6th. Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided; and in elevated style, the clauses should swell towards the close of the sentence. This latter rule, however, which requires some limitations, belongs to the province of the rhetorician, rather than to that of the grammarian.