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 miscon.duct." "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 life-guard, 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. 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 expunged. As the preposition with governs the objective case, in English; 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

N

The

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."

d

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 feparately, it must be in the fingular number: as, "Ignorance or negligence bas caufed this miftake;" "John, James, or Jofeph, intends to accompany me;"" There is, in many minds, neither knowledge nor understanding.

66

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 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." But it would be better to say; "Either I am to blame, or thou art," &c.

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

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 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 fignifying many, may have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it, either of the fingular or 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 diffolved;" "The nation is powerful;" "My people do not confider they have not known me;" "The multitude eagerly pursue pleasure, as their chief good ;"" The council were divided in their fentiments."

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 rea

sons." "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." 66 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 ftand, 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 fame perfon as the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly: Thou who lovest wifdom;" "I who speak

25,

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 favourably 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 re

fers, 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 compounds, 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, rather improperly, to the plural number: as, "All fevers, except what are called nervous," &c. It would be better to say, which are called nervous."

66

except those

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 nished with bees."

speech;” “My banks they are furThese 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;" "Catiline's followers were the most profligate 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,