caused this mistake: John, James, or Joseph, intends to accompany me: There is, in many minds, neither knowledge nor understanding.

RULE XXVI.

A noun of multitude, or signifying many, has a verb, noun, or pronoun agreeing with it either in the singular or plural number.

In the application of this rule regard should be had 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 willimmediately 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; The people is represented by able statesmen. It would be better to say, The peasantry go barefoot; the people are represented, &c. 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: An army were immediately assembled: The court of Rome have been justly censured for their violent proceedings.

N*

RULE XXVII.

The infinitive mood may be governed by a verb, noun, adjective, or participle; as,

Cease to do evil: They have a disposition to do right: He is eager to learn: Endeavoring to persuade.

The infinitive mood is sometimes governed by a conjunction; as, He was so sanguine, as to anticipate no opposition. Sometimes it is governed by an adverb; as, I know not how to proceed. Sometimes by a preposition : as, The ship is about to sail. The preposition about, in this example, is in a similar situation to the participle going in the sentence which follows, and has the same influence in governing the infinitive mood: I am now going to speak to you on a subject of impor tance. (See remarks on the word going, when connected with sentences thus constructed, in the account of Participles, page 45.) That the preposition about governs the verb to sail in the above example, will appear evident by changing the verb to a participial noun; as, The ship is about sailing; sailing is here evidently a participial noun, in the objective case, and governed by about.

The particle to, though generally used before a verb in the infinitive mood, is sometimes proper ly omitted: as, I heard him say it; instead of, to say it.

The verbs which have commonly other verbs following them in the infinitive mood, without the sign to, are bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel: and also, let, not used as an auxiliary, and per haps a few others; as, I bade him do it: Ye dare not do it: I saw him do it: I heard him say it: Thou lettest him go.

The sign to was anciently preceded by for; as, What went ye out for to see? The word for, before the infinitive, is now, in almost every case, obsolete.

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

1. The article refers to a noun or pronoun, expressed or understood, and limits its signification. It is the nature of both the articles to limit the thing spoken of.

A determines it to be one single thing of the kind, leaving it still uncertain which; the determines which it is, or, of many, which they are.

2. Adverbs, though they have no government of the cases of nouns and pronouns, require an appropriate situation in the sentence, viz; for the most part, before adjectives, after verbs transitive or intransitive, and frequently between the auxiliary and the verb as, He made a very sensible discourse; He spoke unaffectedly and forcibly, and was attentively heard by the whole assembly.

For the placing of the adverb, however, on all occasions, no determinate rule can be given. Sometimes it is placed with propriety before the verb or at some distance after it; sometimes between the two auxiliaries, and sometimes after them both. The general rule above given may be of some importance, but the easy flow and perspicuity of the phrase, are the things which ought to be chiefly regard

ed.

3. In the use of words and phrases which, in point of time, relate to each other, a due regard to that relation should be observed. Instead of saying, the Lord hath given and the Lord hath taken away; we should say, The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away. Instead of, I remember the family more than twenty years; it should be, I have remembered the family more than twenty years.

The last week I intended to have written, is a very common phrase; the infinitive being in the past time, as well as the verb which it follows. But it is certainly wrong; for how long soever it now is since I thought of writing, to write was then present to me, and must still be considered as present, when I bring back that time and the thoughts of it. It ought therefore to be, The last week I intended to write. The following sentences are also erroneous: I cannot excuse the remissness of those whose business it should have been, as it certainly was their interest, to have interposed their good offices: There were two circumstances which made it necessary for them to have lost no time : History painters would have found it difficult to have invented such a species of beings: They ought to be, to interpose, to lose, to invent.

4. Two negatives, in English, destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative: as, Nor did they not perceive him; that is, they did perceive him : His language, though inelegant, is not ungrammatical; that is, it is grammatical.

5. To determine what case a noun or pronoun must be in, when it follows the conjunc tions than or as, attend well to the sense and supply the ellipsis; as, Thou art wiser than I; that is, than I am: They loved him more than me; that is, more than they loved me : The sentiment is well expressed by Plato, but much better by Solomon than him; that is, than by him.

The propriety or impropriety of many phrases in the preceding as well as in some other forms, may be discovered, by supplying the words that are not expressed; which will be evident from the following instances of erroneous construction: He can read better than me He is as good as her: Whether I be present or no : Who did this? Me. By supplying the words understood in each of the phrases, their impropriety and governing rule will appear; as, Better than I can read: As good as she is: Present or not present: I did it.

When the relative who follows than, it must be in the objective case; as, Alfred, than whom, a greater king never reigned, &c. Beelzebub, than whom, Satan except, none higher sat, &c. In these examples, whom is governed by than. It is remarkable that in such instances, if the personal pronoun were used, it would be in the nominative case; as, A greater king never reigned than he, that is, than he was. Beelzebub, than he, &c.; that is, than he sat.