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, is 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 seperate 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 copulative, 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 considered 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, morality, every public and private consideration, demand our submission to just and lawful government." "Nothing delights me so much as the works of nature."

In support of such forms of expression as the following, we see the authority of Hume, Priestley, and other writers; and we annex them for the reader's consideration. "A long 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 construction. The words, "A long course of time," "The king » « The side A," and "which," are the true nominatives to the respective verbs. In the last example, the word all should be enged As the preposition with governs the objective case in En

and, if translated into Latin, would govern the ablative case, it is manifest, that the clauses following with, in the preceding sontences, 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 miš fortune, 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 beiter 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 pronoun; as, "Neither poverty nor riches were inju rious 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."

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." It 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?

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 particular bounds," &c. "Can any one, on their entrance into the world,

be fully secure that they shall not be deceived ?" " on his entrance," and "that he shall." "One should not think too favoura bly of ourselves;" "of one's self." "He had one acquaintance which poisoned his principles ;""who poisoned."

Every relative must have an antecedent to which it refers, either expressed or implied: as, "Who is fatal to others is so to himself;" that is, “the man who is fatal to others."

Who, which, what, and the relative that, though in the objective case, are always placed before the verb; as are also their com pounds, whoever, whosoever, &c.; as, "He whom ye seek;" "This is what, or the thing which, or that you want;" "Whomsoever you please to appoint."

What is sometimes applied, in a manner which appears to be exceptionable: as, "All fevers, except what are called nervous." &c. It would at least be better to say, 66 except those which are

called nervous."

1 Personal pronouns being used to supply the place of the noun, are not employed in the same part of a sentence as the noun which they represent; for it would be improper to say, "The king he is just;" "I saw her the queen;""The men they were there;" "Many words they darken speech;” “My banks they are furnished with bees." These personals are superfluous, as there is not the least occasion for a substitute in the same part where the principal word is present. The nominative case they, in the following sentence, is also superfluous; “Who, instead of going about doing good, they are perpetually intent upon doing mischief."

2 The pronoun that is frequently applied to persons as well as to things; but after an adjective in the superlative degree, and after the pronominal adjective same, it is generally used in preference to who or which: as, "Charles XII. king of Sweden, was one of the greatest madmen that the world ever saw;" "Cataline's followers were the most proffigate that could be found in any city." "He is the same man that we saw before." There are cases wherein we cannot conveniently dispense with this relative as applied to persons: as first, after who the interrogative; "Who that has any sense of religion, would have argued thus?" Secondly, when persons make but a part of the antecedent; "The woman, and the estate, that became his por tion, were too much for his moderation." In neither of these examples could any other relative have been used.

3 The pronouns whichsoever, whosoever, and the like, are elegantly divided by the interposition of the corresponding substantives: thus, "On whichsoever side the king cast his eyes ;" would have sounded better, if written, "On which side soever," &c.

4 Many persons are apt, in conversation, to put the objective case of the personal pronouns, in the place of these and those: 85, "Give me them books ;" instead of "those books." may sometimes find this fault even in writing: as, "Observe

We

them three there." We also frequently meet with those instead of they, at the beginning of a sentence, and where there is no particular reference to an antecedent; as, "Those that sow in tears, sometimes reap in joy." They that, or they who sow in tears.

It is not, however, always easy to say, whether a personal pronoun or a demonstrative is preferable, in certain constructions "We are not unacquainted with the calumny of them [or those] who openly make use of the warmest professions."

5 In some dialects, the word what is improperly used for that and sometimes we find it in this sense in writing: "They will never believe but what I have been entirely to blame." I am not satisfied but what," &c. instead of "but that." The word somewhat, in the following sentence, seems to be used improperly. "These punishments seem to have been exercised in somewhat an arbitrary manner." Sometimes we read, "In somewhat of." The meaning is, “in a manner which is in some respects arbitrary."

6 The pronoun relative who is so much apropriated to per Bons, that there is generally harshness in the application of it, except to the proper names of persons, or the general terms man, woman, &c. A term which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of it: as, "That faction in England who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions." "That faction which," would have been better; and the same remark will serve for the following examples: "France, who was in alliance with Sweden." "The court, who," &c. "The cavalry, who," &c. "The cities who aspired at liberty." "That party among us who," &c. "The family whom they consider as usurpers."

In some cases it may be doubtful, whether this pronoun is properly applied or not: as, "The number of substantial inhabitants with whom some cities abound." For when a term directly and necessarily implies persons, it may in many cases claim the personal relative. "None of the company whom he most affected, could cure him of the melancholy under which he laboured." The word acquaintance may have the same construction.

7 We hardly consider little children as persous, because that term gives us the idea of reason and reflection: and therefore the application of the personal relative who, in this case, seems to be harsh: "A child who." It is still more improperly applied to animals: "A lake frequented by that fowl whom nature has taught to dip the wing in water."

8 When the name of a person is used merely as a name, and it does not refer to the person, the pronoun who ought not to be applied. "It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and economy." Better thus; "whose name was but another word for prudence, &c." The word whose begins likewise to he restricted to persons; yet it is not done so generally, but that