great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it;" ;" "The wages of sin is death."

5 When the nominative case has no personal tense of a verb, but is put before a participle, independeutly on the rest of the sentence, it is called the case absolute: as, “Shame being lost, all virtue is lost;" "That having been discussed long ago, there is no occasion to resume it."

As in the use of the case absolute, the case is, in English, always the nominative, the following example is erroneous, in making it the objective. "Solomon was of this mind; and I have no doubt he made as wise and true proverbs, as any body has done since; him only excepted, who was a much greater and wiser man than Solomon." It should be, "he only excepted."

The nominative case is commonly placed before the verb; but sometimes it is put after the verb, if it is a simple tense; and between the auxiliary, and the verb or participle, if a compound tense: as,

1st, When a question is asked, a command given, or a wish expressed: as, "Confidest thou in me ?" "Read thou ;" "Mayst thou be happy!" "Long live the King!"

as,

2d, When a supposition is made without the conjunction if: "Were it not for this ;" "Had I been there."

3d, When a verb neuter is used: as, "On a sudden appeared the king."

4th, When the verb is preceded by the adverbs, here, there, then, thence, hence, thus, &c.: as, "Here am I;""There was he slain;"" Then cometh the end;" "Thence ariseth his grief;" "Hence proceeds his anger;" "Thus was the affair settled.”

5th, When a sentence depends on neither or nor, so as to be coupled with another sentence: as, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

Some grammarians assert, that the phrases, as follows, as appears, form wh are called impersonal verbs; and should, therefore, be confined to the singular number: as, "The arguments advanced were nearly as follows;" "The positions were as appears incontrovertible:" that is, "as it follows,"46 as it appears." If we give (say they) the sentence a different turn, and instead of as, say such as, the verb is no longer termed impersonal; but properly agrees with its nominative, in the plural number: as, "The arguments advanced were nearly such as follow;" "The positions were such as appear incontrovertible."*

*These grammarians are supported by general usage, and by the authority of an eminent critic on language and composition. When a verb is used impersonally," says Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, "it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressedor understood." For this reason, analogy and usage favour this mode of expression: "The conditions of the agreement were as follows;" and not, as follow. A few late writers have inconsiderately adopted this last form, through

They who doubt the accuracy of Horne Tooke's statement, "That as, however and whenever used in English, means the same as it, or that, or which ;" and who are not satisfied whether the verbs, in the sentence first mentioned, should be in the sin gular or the plural number, may vary the form of expression, Thus, the sense of the preceding sentences, may be conveyed in the following terms. "The arguments advanced were nearly of the following nature;" "The following are nearly the arguments which were advanced ;"" The arguments advanced were nearly those which follow:" "It appears that the positions were incontrovertible;" "That the positions were incontrovertible is apparent;""The positions were apparently incontrovertible." See the Octavo Grammar, the Note under Rule I.

RULE II.

Two or more nouns, &c. in the singular number joined together by a copulative conjunction, expressed or understood, must have verbs, nouns, and pronouns, agreeing with them in the plural number: as, "Socrates and Plato were wise; they were the most eminent philosophers of Greece;" "The sun that rolls over our heads, the food that we receive, the rest that we enjoy, daily admonish us of a superior and superintending Power."*

This rule is often violated; some instances of which are annexed. “And so was also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon;""and so were also." "All joy, tranquillity, and peace, even for ever and ever, doth dweil;" "dual for ever." "By whose power all good and evil is distributed;" .99.66 are distributed." "Their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;"" are perished." "The thoughtless and intemperate enjoyment of pleasure, the criminal abuse of it, and the forgetfulness of our being accountable creatures, obliterates every serious thought of the proper business of life, and effaces the sense of religion and of God;" "It ought to be, "obliterate," and "efface."

1 When the nouns are nearly related, or scarcely distinguishable in sense, and sometimes even when they are very different, some authors have thought it allowable to put the verbs, nouns, and pronouns, in the singular number: as, "Tranquillity ant peace dwells there;" "Ignorance and negligence has produced the effect;""The discomfiture and slaughter was very great." But it is evidently contrary to the first principles of grammar, to consider two distinct ideas as one, however nice may be their shades of difference: and if there be no difference, one of them must be superfluous, and ought to be rejected.

a mistake of the construction. For the same reason, we ought to say, "I shall consider his censures so far only as concerns my friend's conduct;" and not ‘so far as concern.'

* See the exceptions to this rule, at p. 46 of the Key; 12th edition.

To support the above construction, it is said, that the verb may be understood as applied to each of the preceding terms; as in the following example. "Sand, and salt, and a mass of iron, s easier to bear than a man without understanding." But besides the confusion, and the latitude of application, which such a construction would introduce, it appears to be more proper and analogical, in cases where the verb is intended to be applied to any one of the terms, to make use of the disjunctive conjunction, which grammatically refers the verb to one or other of the preceding terms in a separate view. To preserve the distinctive uses of the copulative and disjunctive conjunctions, would render the rules precise, consistent, and intelligible. Dr. Blair.very justly observes, that "two or more substantives, joined by a copu'rive, must always require the verb or pronoun to which they refer, to be placed in the plural number."

2 In many complex sentences, it is difficult for learners to determine, whether one or more of the clauses are to be consi as the nominative case; and consequently, whether the verb should be in the singular or the plural number. We shall, therefore, set down a number of varied examples of this nature, which may serve as some government to the scholar, with respect to sentences of a similar construction. Prosperity, with humility, renders its possessor truly amiable." "The ship, with all her furniture, was destroyed." "Not only his estate, his reputation too has suffered by his misconduct." "The general also, in conjunction with the officers, has applied for redress.' "He cannot be justified; for it is true, that the prince, as well as the people, was blameworthy." "The king, with his lifeguard, has just passed through the village." "In the mutual influence of body and soul, there is a wisdom, a wonderful wisdom, which we cannot fathom." "Virtue, honour, nay, even self-interest, conspire to recommend the measure." "Patriotism, niorality, every public and private consideration, demand our submission to just and lawful government." Nothing delights me so much us the works of nature."

66

In support of such forms of expression as the following, we see the authority of Hume, Priestleys and other writers; and we annex them for the reader's consideration. "A fong course of time, with a variety of accidents and circumstances, are requisite to produce those revolutions The king, with the lords and commons, form an excellent frame of government." The side A, with the sides B and C, compose the triangle." "The fire communicated itself to the bed, which, with the furniture of the room, and a valuable library, were all entirely consumed." It is, however, proper to observe, that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by the just principles of construc966 The tion. The words, "A long course of time," "The king," side A," and "which," are the true nominatives to the respective verbs. In the last example, the word all should be expunges. As the preposition with governs the objective case in English,

1 2

and, if translated into Latin, would govern the ablative case, it is manifest, that the clauses following with, in the preceding_sentences, cannot form any part of the nominative case. They cannot be at the same time in the objective and the nominative cases. The following sentence appears to be unexceptionable; and may serve to explain the others. "The lords and commons are essential branches of the British constitution : the king, with them, forms an excellent frame of government.”*

3 If the singular nouns and pronouns, which are joined together by a copulative conjunction, be of several persons, in making the plural pronoun agree with them in person, the second person takes place of the third, and the first of both: as, "James, and thou, and I, are attached to our country.". "Thou and he shared it between you."

RULE III.

The conjunction disjunctive has an effect contrary to that of the conjunction copulative: for as the verb, noun, or pronoun, is referred to the preceding terms taken separately, it must be in the singular number: as, "Ignorance or negligence has caused this mistake;" "John, James, or Joseph, intends to accompany me;" There is, in many

minds, neither knowledge nor understanding.”

The following sentences are variations from this rule: "A man may see a metaphor or an allegory in a picture, as well as read them in a description ;" "read it." "Neither character nor dialogue were yet understood;" "was yet." "It must indeed be confessed, that a lampoon or a satire do not carry in them robbery or murder," "does not carry in it." " Death, or some worse misfortune, soon divide them." It ought to be " divides."

1 When singular pronouns, or a noun and pronoun, of different persons, are disjunctively connected, the verb must agree with that person which is placed nearest to it: as, "I or thou art to blame;" "Thou or I am in fault;" "I, or thou, or he, is the author of it;""George or I am the person." But it would be better to say; Either I am to blame, or thou art," &c.

2 When a disjunctive occurs between a singular noun, or pronoun, and a plural one, the verb is made to agree with the plural noun and pronounaa, “Neither poverty nor riches were injurious to him ;” “I or they were offended by it.” But in this case, the plural noun or pronoun, when it can conveniently be done, should be placed next to the verb.

RULE IV.

A noun of multitude, or signifying many, may have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it, either of the singular or

Though the construction will not admit of a plural verb, the sentence would certainly stand better thus: "The king, the lords, and the commons, form an, excellent constitution.**

plural number; yet not without regard to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea: as, The meeting was large;" "The parliament is dissolved;" "The nation is powerful;" "My people do not consider: they have not known me;" "The multitude eagerly pursue pleasure, as their chief good;" "The council were divided in their sentiments."

It

We ought to consider whether the term will immediately suggest the idea of the number it represents, or whether it exhibits to the mind the idea of the whole as one thing. In the former case, the verb ought to be plural; in the latter, it ought to be singular. Thus, it seems improper to say, The peasantry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes." would be better to say, "The peasantry go barefoot, and the middle sort make use," &c. because the idea in both these cases, is that of a number. On the contrary, there is a harshness in the following sentences, in which nouns of number have verbs plural; because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind. "The court of Rome were not without solicitude." "The house of commons were of small weight." "The house of lords were so much influenced by these reasons 66 Stephen's party were entirely broken up by the captivity of their leader." "An army of twenty-four thousand were assembled." "What reason have the church of Rome for proceeding in this manner?" "There is indeed no constitution so tame and careless of their own defence." "All the virtues of mankind are to be counted upon a few fingers, but his follies and vices are innumerable." Is not mankind in this place a noun of multitude, and such as requires the pronoun referring to it to be in the plural number, their 2

RULE V.

Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, and the nouns for which they stand, in gender and number: as, "This is the friend whom I love;" That is the vice which I hate;" "The king and the queen had put on their robes;" The moon appears, and she shines, but the light is not her

own.

The relative is of the same person as the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly: as," Thou who lovest wisdom;" "I who speak from experience.'

Of this rule there are many violations to be met with; a few of which may be sufficient to put the learner on his guard. “Each of the sexes should keep within its particular bounds, and content themselves with the advantages of their particular districts:" better thus: "The sexes should keep within their par?' (1.3r bounds," &e. "Can any one, on their entrance into the

crid