« PreviousContinue »
“ 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 of a pronoun, in English; and, if translated into Latin, would govern the ablative ease, it is manifest, from analogy, that the clauses following with, in the preceding sentences, cannot form any part of the nominative case. 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 excel. lent 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 conntry."
* Thou and he shared it between you.
RULE III. The conjunction disjunctive has an effect contrary so that of the conjunction copulative; for as the verb, noun, or pronoun, is referred to the preceding terms waken 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 yariations from this rule : * A man may see a metaphor or an allegory in a picture, as well as read them in a description ;' is read it." “ Nei. ther character nor dialogue were yet understood;" “ was
“ It must indeed be confessed that a lampoon or a satire do not carry in them robbery or murder;" 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 dis. junctively connected, the verb must agree with that person
is placed nearest to it; as, “ I or thou art to blame ;**
99 66 does
“ 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.
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 signifying many, may have a verb or pronoun agreeing with it, either of the singular 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 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 dis vided in their sentiments."
We ought to consider whether the term will immediately suggest the idea of the number it represents, or whether il 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 sore 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. 6 The court of Rome were not without solicitude."
6 The house of commons were of small weight."
• The house of us were so much influenced by these reasons." “ 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 noun referring to it' to be in the plural number, their ?
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 with the ante.. cedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly : as, " Thou who lovest wisdom ;” “I roho 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 parti. cular 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 ti 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 refers, either expressed or implied : as, “ Who is fatal to others is so to himself;" that is, “ the man who is fatal to others." 1 Who, which, what, and the relative that, though in the biective case, are always placed before the verb; as are except those
also their compounds, whoever, whosoever, &c. as, “ He whom
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."
1. Personal pronouns being used to supply the place of the noun, are not employed in the same part of a sentence with the noun which they represent; for it would be im. proper to say, “ The king be is just;" " I saw her the queen ;" “ The men they were there ;" " Many words they darken speech ;" “ My banks they are furnished with
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, 66 Charles XII. king of Sweden, was one of the greatest miadinen that the world ever saw ;" “ Catiline's followers were the most profligate that could be found in any city."
6. 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 portion were too nuuch 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 corres. ponding 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
66 These pun
objective case of the personal pronouns, in the place of these and those : as, “ Give me them books ;" instead of " those books." We may sometimes find this fault even in writing : as, “ Observe 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. ishments seems 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 appropriated to persons, that there is generally harshness in the application of it, except to the proper names of persons, or the general terms män, 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 are bitrary pretensions.” “ That faction which," would have been better ; and the same remark will serve for the fol., lowing 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 'surpers. 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 av in many cases claim the personal relative.