EXCEPTION FIRST.
When two nominatives connected by and serve merely to describe one person or thing, they are either in apposition or equivalent to one name, and do not require a plural verb; as, "Immediately comes a hue and cry after a gang of thieves."—L'Estrange. "The hue and cry of the country pursues him."—Junius, Letter xxiii. "Flesh and blood [i. e. man, or man's nature,] hath not revealed it unto thee."—Matt., xvi, 17." Descent and fall to us is adverse."—Milton, P. L., ii, 76. "This philosopher and poet was banished from his country."—"Such a Saviour and Redeemer is actually provided for us."—Gurney's Essays, p. 386. "Let us then declare what great things our God and Saviour has done for us."—Dr. Scott, on Luke viii. "Toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them."—Ezra, iv, 20.
"Whose icy current and compulsive course
Ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on."—Shakspeare.
EXCEPTION SECOND.
When two nominatives connected by and, are emphatically distinguished, they belong to different propositions, and, if singular, do not require a plural verb; as, "Ambition, and not the safety of the state, was concerned."—Goldsmith. "Consanguinity, and not affinity, is the ground of the prohibition."—Webster's Essays, p. 324. "But a modification, and oftentimes a total change, takes place."—Maunder. "Somewhat, and, in many circumstances, a great deal too, is put upon us."—Butler's Analogy, p. 108. "Disgrace, and perhaps ruin, was the certain consequence of attempting the latter."—Robertson's America, i, 434.
"Ay, and no too, was no good divinity."—_Shakespeare.
"Love_, and love only, is the loan for love."—Young.
EXCEPTION THIRD.
When two or more nominatives connected by and are preceded by the adjective each, every, or no, they are taken separately, and do not require a plural verb; as, "When no part of their substance, and no one of their properties, is the same."—Bp. Butler. "Every limb and feature appears with its respective grace."—Steele. "Every person, and every occurrence, is beheld in the most favourable light."—Murray's Key, p. 190. "Each worm, and each insect, is a marvel of creative power."
"Whose every look and gesture was a joke
To clapping theatres and shouting crowds."—Young.
EXCEPTION FOURTH.
When the verb separates its nominatives, it agrees with that which precedes it, and is understood to the rest; as, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."—Murray's Exercises, p. 36.
"Disdain forbids me, and my dread of shame."—Milton.
"———Forth in the pleasing spring,
Thy beauty walks, thy tenderness, and love."—Thomson.
OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVI.
OBS. 1.—According to Lindley Murray, (who, in all his compilation, from whatever learned authorities, refers us to no places in any book but his own.) "Dr. Blair 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:' and this," continues the great Compiler, "is the general sentiment of English grammarians."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 150. The same thing is stated in many other grammars: thus, Ingersoll has the very same words, on the 238th page of his book; and R. C. Smith says, "Dr. Blair very justly observes," &c.—Productive Gram., p. 126. I therefore doubt not, the learned rhetorician has somewhere made some such remark: though I can neither supply the reference which these gentlemen omit, nor vouch for the accuracy of their quotation. But I trust to make it very clear, that so many grammarians as hold this sentiment, are no great readers, to say the least of them. Murray himself acknowledges one exception to this principle, and unconsciously furnishes examples of one or two more; but, in stead of placing the former in his Grammar, and under the rule, where the learner would be likely to notice it, he makes it an obscure and almost unintelligible note, in the margin of his Key, referring by an asterisk to the following correction: "Every man and every woman was numbered."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. ii. p. 190. To justify this phraseology, he talks thus: "Whatever number of nouns may be connected by a conjunction with the pronoun EVERY, this pronoun is as applicable to the whole mass of them, as to any one of the nouns; and therefore the verb is correctly put in the singular number, and refers to the whole separately and individually considered."—Ib. So much, then, for "the pronoun EVERY!" But, without other exceptions, what shall be done with the following texts from Murray himself? "The flock, and not the fleece, is, or ought to be the object of the shepherd's care."—Ib., ii, 184. "This prodigy of learning, this scholar, critic, and antiquary, was entirely destitute of breeding and civility."—Ib., ii, 217. And, in the following line, what conjunction appears, or what is the difference between "horror" and "black despair." that the verb should be made plural?
"What black despair, what horror, fill his mind!"—Ib., ii, 183.
"What black despair, what horror fills his heart!"—Thomson.[395]
OBS. 2.—Besides the many examples which may justly come under the four exceptions above specified, there are several questionable but customary expressions, which have some appearance of being deviations from this rule, but which may perhaps be reasonably explained on the principle of ellipsis: as, "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy."—"Slow and steady often outtravels haste."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 23. "Little and often fills the purse."—Treasury of Knowledge, Part i, p. 446. "Fair and softly goes far." These maxims, by universal custom, lay claim to a singular verb; and, for my part, I know not how they can well be considered either real exceptions to the foregoing rule, or real inaccuracies under it; for, in most of them, the words connected are not nouns; and those which are so, may not be nominatives. And it is clear, that every exception must have some specific character by which it may be distinguished; else it destroys the rule, in stead of confirming it, as known exceptions are said to do. Murray appears to have thought the singular verb wrong; for, among his examples for parsing, he has, "Fair and softly go far," which instance is no more entitled to a plural verb than the rest. See his Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 5. Why not suppose them all to be elliptical? Their meaning may be as follows: "To have all work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy."—"What is slow and steady, often outtravels haste."—"To put in little and often, fills the purse."—"What proceeds fair and softly, goes far." The following line from Shakspeare appears to be still more elliptical:
"Poor and content is rich, and rich enough."—Othello.
This may be supposed to mean, "He who is poor and content," &c. In the following sentence again, we may suppose an ellipsis of the phrase To have, at the beginning; though here, perhaps, to have pluralized the verb, would have been as well:
"One eye on death and one full fix'd on heaven, Becomes a mortal and immortal man."—Young.
OBS. 3.—The names of two persons are not unfrequently used jointly as the name of their story; in which sense, they must have a singular verb, if they have any; as, "Prior's Henry and Emma contains an other beautiful example."—Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 179. I somewhat hesitate to call this an exception to the foregoing rule, because here too the phraseology may be supposed elliptical. The meaning is, "Prior's little poem, entitled, 'Henry and Emma,' contains," &c.;—or, "Prior's story of Henry and Emma contains," &c. And, if the first expression is only an abbreviation of one of these, the construction of the verb contains may be referred to Rule 14th. See Exception 1st to Rule 12th, and Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.
OBS. 4.—The conjunction and, by which alone we can with propriety connect different words to make them joint nominatives or joint antecedents, is sometimes suppressed and understood; but then its effect is the same, as if it were inserted; though a singular verb might sometimes be quite as proper in the same sentences, because it would merely imply a disjunctive conjunction or none at all: as, "The high breach of trust, the notorious corruption, are stated in the strongest terms."—Junius, Let. xx. "Envy, self-will, jealousy, pride, often reign there."—Abbott's Corner Stone, p. 111. (See Obs. 4th on Rule 12th.)
"Art, empire, earth itself, to change are doomed."—Beattie.
"Her heart, her mind, her love, is his alone."—Cowley.
In all the foregoing examples, a singular verb might have been used without impropriety; or the last, which is singular, might have been plural. But the following couplet evidently requires a plural verb, and is therefore correct as the poet wrote it; both because the latter noun is plural, and because the conjunction and is understood between the two. Yet a late grammarian, perceiving no difference between the joys of sense and the pleasure of reason, not only changes "lie" to "lies," but uses the perversion for a proof text, under a rule which refers the verb to the first noun only, and requires it to be singular. See Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 250.
"Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense.
Lie in three words—health, peace, and competence."
—Pope's Ess., Ep. iv, l. 80.
OBS. 5.—When the speaker changes his nominative to take a stronger expression, he commonly uses no conjunction; but, putting the verb in agreement with the noun which is next to it, he leaves the other to an implied concord with its proper form of the same verb: as, "The man whose designs, whose whole conduct, tends to reduce me to subjection, that man is at war with me, though not a blow has yet been given, nor a sword drawn."—Blair's Rhet., p. 265. "All Greece, all the barbarian world, is too narrow for this man's ambition."—Ibid. "This self-command, this exertion of reason in the midst of passion, has a wonderful effect both to please and to persuade."—Ib., p. 260. "In the mutual influence of body and soul, there is a wisdom, a wonderful wisdom, which we cannot fathom."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 150. If the principle here stated is just, Murray has written the following models erroneously: "Virtue, honour, nay, even self-interest, conspire to recommend the measure."—Ib., p. 150. "Patriotism, morality, every public and private consideration, demand our submission to just and lawful government."—Ibid. In this latter instance, I should prefer the singular verb demands; and in the former, the expression ought to be otherwise altered, thus. "Virtue, honour, and interest, all conspire to recommend the measure." Or thus: "Virtue, honour—nay, even self-interest, recommends the measure." On this principle, too, Thomson was right, and this critic wrong, in the example cited at the close of the first observation above. This construction is again recurred to by Murray, in the second chapter of his Exercises; where he explicitly condemns the following sentence because the verb is singular: "Prudence, policy, nay, his own true interest, strongly recommends the line of conduct proposed to him."—Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 22.
OBS. 6.—When two or more nominatives are in apposition with a preceding one which they explain, the verb must agree with the first word only, because the others are adjuncts to this, and not joint subjects to the verb; as, "Loudd, the ancient Lydda and Diospolis, appears like a place lately ravaged by fire and sword."—Keith's Evidences, p. 93. "Beattie, James,—a philosopher and poet,—was born in Scotland, in the year 1735."—Murray's Sequel, p. 306. "For, the quantity, the length, and shortness of our syllables, is not, by any means, so fixed."—Blair's Rhet., p. 124. This principle, like the preceding one, persuades me again to dissent from Murray, who corrects or perverts the following sentence, by changing originates to originate: "All that makes a figure on the great theatre of the world; the employments of the busy, the enterprises of the ambitious, and the exploits of the warlike; the virtues which form the happiness, and the crimes which occasion the misery of mankind; originates in that silent and secret recess of thought, which is hidden from every human eye."—See Murray's Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 181; or his Duodecimo Key, p. 21. The true subject of this proposition is the noun all, which is singular; and the other nominatives are subordinate to this, and merely explanatory of it.
OBS. 7.—Dr. Webster says, "Enumeration and addition of numbers are usually expressed in the singular number; [as,] two and two is four; seven and nine is sixteen; that is, the sum of seven and nine is sixteen. But modern usage inclines to reject the use of the verb in the singular number, in these and similar phrases."—Improved Gram., p. 106. Among its many faults, this passage exhibits a virtual contradiction. For what "modern usage inclines to reject," can hardly be the fashion in which any ideas "are usually expressed." Besides, I may safely aver, that this is a kind of phraseology which all correct usage always did reject. It is not only a gross vulgarism, but a plain and palpable violation of the foregoing rule of syntax; and, as such it must be reputed, if the rule has any propriety at all. What "enumeration" has to do with it, is more than I can tell. But Dr. Webster once admired and commended this mode of speech, as one of the "wonderful proofs of ingenuity in the framers of language;" and laboured to defend it as being "correct upon principle;" that is, upon the principle that "the sum of" is understood to be the subject of the affirmation, when one says, "Two and two is four," in stead of, "Two and two are four."—See Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 153. This seems to me a "wonderful proof" of ignorance in a very learned man. OBS. 8.—In Greek and Latin, the verb frequently agrees with the nearest nominative, and is understood to the rest; and this construction is sometimes imitated in English, especially if the nouns follow the verb: as, "[Greek: Nuni do MENEI pistis, elpis agape, ta tria tanta]."—"Nunc vero manet fides, spes, charitas; tria hæc."—"Now abideth faith, hope, charity; these three."—1 Cor., xiii, 13. "And now abideth confession, prayer, and praise, these three; but the greatest of these is praise."—ATTERBURY: Blair's Rhet., p. 300. The propriety of this usage, so far as our language is concerned, I doubt. It seems to open a door for numerous deviations from the foregoing rule, and deviations of such a sort, that if they are to be considered exceptions, one can hardly tell why. The practice, however, is not uncommon, especially if there are more nouns than two, and each is emphatic; as, "Wonderful was the patience, fortitude, self-denial, and bravery of our ancestors."—Webster's Hist. of U. S., p. 118. "It is the very thing I would have you make out: for therein consists the form, and use, and nature of language."—Berkley's Alciphron, p. 161. "There is the proper noun, and the common noun. There is the singular noun, and the plural noun."—Emmons's Gram., p. 11. "From him proceeds power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every other blessing we can conceive."—Calvin's Institutes, B. i, Ch. 13. "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country?"—Jer., vi, 20. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever."—Matt., vi, 13. In all these instances, the plural verb might have been used; and yet perhaps the singular may be justified on the ground that there is a distinct and emphatic enumeration of the nouns. Thus, it would be proper to say, "Thine are the kingdom, the power, and the glory;" but this construction seems less emphatic than the preceding, which means, "For thine is the kingdom, thine is the power, and thine is the glory, forever;" and this repetition is still more emphatic, and perhaps more proper, than the elliptical form. The repetition of the conjunction "and," in the original text as above, adds time and emphasis to the reading, and makes the singular verb more proper than it would otherwise be; for which reason, the following form, in which the Rev. Dr. Bullions has set the sentence down for bad English, is in some sort a perversion of the Scripture: "Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 141.
OBS. 9.—When the nominatives are of different persons, the verb agrees with the first person in preference to the second, and with the second in preference to the third; for thou and I, or he, thou, and I, are equivalent to we; and thou and he are equivalent to you: as, "Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, thou and Ziba divide the land."—2 Sam., xix. 29. That is, "divide ye the land." "And live thou and thy children of the rest."—2 Kings, iv, 7. "That I and thy people have found grace in thy sight."—Exodus, xxxiii, 16. "I and my kingdom are guiltless."—2 Sam., iii, 28. "I, and you, and Piso perhaps too, are in a state of dissatisfaction."—Zenobia, i, 114.
"Then I, and you, and all of us, fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us."—Shak., J. Cæsar.
OBS. 10.—When two or more nominatives connected by and are of the same form but distinguished by adjectives or possessives, one or more of them may be omitted by ellipsis, but the verb must be plural, and agree with them all; as, "A literary, a scientific, a wealthy, and a poor man, were assembled in one room."—Peirce's Gram., p. 263. Here four different men are clearly spoken of. "Else the rising and the falling emphasis are the same."—Knowles's Elocutionist, p. 33. Here the noun emphasis is understood after rising. "The singular and [the] plural form seem to be confounded."—Lowth's Gram., p. 22. Here the noun form is presented to the mind twice; and therefore the article should have been repeated. See Obs. 15th on Rule 1st. "My farm and William's are adjacent to each other."—Peirce's Gram., p. 220. Here the noun farm is understood after the possessive William's, though the author of the sentence foolishly attempts to explain it otherwise. "Seth's, Richard's and Edmund's farms are those which their fathers left them."—Ib., p. 257. Here the noun farms is understood after Seth's, and again after Richard's; so that the sentence is written wrong, unless each man has more than one farm. "Was not Demosthenes's style, and his master Plato's, perfectly Attic; and yet none more lofty?"—Milnes's Greek Gram., p. 241. Here style is understood after Plato's; wherefore was should rather be were, or else and should be changed to as well as. But the text, as it stands, is not much unlike some of the exceptions noticed above. "The character of a fop, and of a rough warrior, are no where more successfully contrasted."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 236. Here the ellipsis is not very proper. Say, "the character of a fop, and that of a rough warrior," &c. Again: "We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, of the legislature, and of public assemblies, are seldom or ever found united to high perfection in the same person."—J. Q. Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. 256. Here the ellipsis cannot so well be avoided by means of the pronominal adjective that, and therefore it may be thought more excusable; but I should prefer a repetition of the nominative: as, "We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, the eloquence of the legislature, and the eloquence of public assemblies, are seldom if ever found united, in any high degree, in the same person."
OBS. 11.—The conjunction as, when it connects nominatives that are in apposition, or significant of the same person or thing, is commonly placed at the beginning of a sentence, so that the verb agrees with its proper nominative following the explanatory word: thus, "As a poet, he holds a high rank."—Murray's Sequel, p. 355. "As a poet, Addison claims a high praise."—Ib., p. 304. "As a model of English prose, his writings merit the greatest praise."—Ib., p. 305. But when this conjunction denotes a comparison between different persons or things signified by two nominatives, there must be two verbs expressed or understood, each agreeing with its own subject; as, "Such writers as he [is,] have no reputation worth any man's envy." [396]
"Such men as he [is] be never at heart's ease
Whiles they behold a greater than themselves."—Shakspeare.
OBS. 12.—When two nominatives are connected by as well as, but, or save, they must in fact have two verbs, though in most instances only one is expressed; as, "Such is the mutual dependence of words in sentences, that several others, as well as [is] the adjective, are not to be used alone."—Dr. Wilson's Essay, p. 99. "The Constitution was to be the one fundamental law of the land, to which all, as well States as people, should submit."—W. I. BOWDITCH: Liberator, No. 984. "As well those which history, as those which experience offers to our reflection."— Bolingbroke, on History, p. 85. Here the words "offers to our reflection" are understood after "history." "None but He who discerns futurity, could have foretold and described all these things."—Keith's Evidences, p. 62. "That there was in those times no other writer, of any degree of eminence, save he himself."—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 43.
"I do entreat you not a man depart,
Save I alone, till Antony have spoke."—Shak., J. Cæsar.
OBS. 13.—Some grammarians say, that but and save, when they denote exception, should govern the objective case as prepositions. But this idea is, without doubt, contrary to the current usage of the best authors, either ancient or modern. Wherefore I think it evident that these grammarians err. The objective case of nouns being like the nominative, the point can be proved only by the pronouns; as, "There is none but he alone."—Perkins's Theology, 1608. "There is none other but he."—Mark, xii, 32. (This text is good authority as regards the case, though it is incorrect in an other respect: it should have been, "There is none but he," or else, "There is no other than he.") "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."—John, iii, 13. "Not that any man hath seen the father, save he which is of God."—John, vi, 46. "Few can, save he and I."—Byron's Werner. "There is none justified, but he that is in measure sanctified."—Isaac Penington. Save, as a conjunction, is nearly obsolete.
OBS. 14.—In Rev., ii, 17th, we read, "Which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth it;" and again, xiii, 17th, "That no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark." The following text is inaccurate, but not in the construction of the nominative they: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."—Matt., xix, 11. The version ought to have been, "Not all men can receive this saying, but they only to whom it is given:" i.e., "they only can receive it, to whom there is given power to receive it." Of but with a nominative, examples may be multiplied indefinitely. The following are as good as any: "There is no God but He."—Sale's Koran, p. 27. "The former none but He could execute."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 317. "There was nobody at home but I."—Walker's Particles, p. 95. "A fact, of which as none but he could be conscious, [so] none but he could be the publisher of it."—Pope's Works, Vol. iii, p. 117. "Few but they who are involved in the vices, are involved in the irreligion of the times."—Brown's Estimate, i, 101.
"I claim my right. No Grecian prince but I
Has power this bow to grant, or to deny."
—Pope, Odys., B. xxi, l. 272.
"Thus she, and none but she, the insulting rage
Of heretics oppos'd from age to age."
—Dryden's Poems, p. 98.
In opposition to all these authorities, and many more that might be added, we have, with now and then a text of false syntax, the absurd opinion of perhaps a score or two of our grammarians; one of whom imagines he has found in the following couplet from Swift, an example to the purpose; but he forgets that the verb let governs the objective case:
"Let none but him who rules the thunder,
Attempt to part these twain asunder."
—Perley's Gram., p. 62.
OBS. 15.—It is truly a wonder, that so many professed critics should not see the absurdity of taking but and save for "prepositions," when this can be done only by condemning the current usage of nearly all good authors, as well as the common opinion of most grammarians; and the greater is the wonder, because they seem to do it innocently, or to teach it childishly, as not knowing that they cannot justify both sides, when the question lies between opposite and contradictory principles. By this sort of simplicity, which approves of errors, if much practised, and of opposites, or essential contraries, when authorities may be found for them, no work, perhaps, is more strikingly characterized, than the popular School Grammar of W. H. Wells. This author says, "The use of but as a preposition is approved by J. E. Worcester, John Walker, R. C. Smith, Picket, Hiley, Angus, Lynde, Hull, Powers, Spear, Farnum, Fowle, Goldsbury, Perley, Cobb, Badgley, Cooper, Jones, Davis, Beall, Hendrick, Hazen, and Goodenow."—School Gram., 1850, p. 178. But what if all these authors do prefer, "but him," and "save him," where ten times as many would say, "but he," "save he?" Is it therefore difficult to determine which party is right? Or is it proper for a grammarian to name sundry authorities on both sides, excite doubt in the mind of his reader, and leave the matter unsettled? "The use of but as a preposition," he also states, "is discountenanced by G. Brown, Sanborn, Murray, S. Oliver, and several other grammarians. (See also an able article in the Mass. Common School Journal, Vol. ii, p. 19.)"—School Gram., p. 178.
OBS. 16.—Wells passes no censure on the use of nominatives after but and save; does not intimate which case is fittest to follow these words; gives no false syntax under his rule for the regimen of prepositions; but inserts there the following brief remarks and examples:
"REM. 3.—The word save is frequently used to perform the office of a preposition; as, 'And all desisted, all save him alone.'—Wordsworth."
"REM. 4.—But is sometimes employed as a preposition, in the sense of except; as, 'The boy stood on the burning deck, Whence all but him had fled.'—Hemans."—Ib., p. 167.
Now, "BUT," says Worcester, as well as Tooke and others, was "originally bot, contracted from be out;" and, if this notion of its etymology is just, it must certainly be followed by the nominative case, rather than by the objective; for the imperative be or be out governs no case, admits no additional term but a nominative—an obvious and important fact, quite overlooked by those who call but a preposition. According to Allen H. Weld, but and save "are commonly considered prepositions," but "are more commonly termed conjunctions!" This author repeats Wells's examples of "save him," and "but him," as being right; and mixes them with opposite examples of "save he," "but he," "save I," which he thinks to be more right!—Weld's Gram., p. 187.
OBS. 17.—Professor Fowler, too, an other author remarkable for a facility of embracing incompatibles, contraries, or dubieties, not only condemns as "false syntax" the use of save for an exceptive conjunction. (§587. ¶28,) but cites approvingly from Latham the following very strange absurdity: "One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a Conjunction or [a] Preposition, as the case may be: [as] All fled but John."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, § 555. This is equivalent to saying, that "one and the same sentence" may be two different sentences; may, without error, be understood in two different senses; may be rightly taken, resolved, and parsed in two different ways! Nay, it is equivalent to a denial of the old logical position, that "It is impossible for a thing to be and not be at the same time;" for it supposes "but," in the instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and not a conjunction, both a preposition and not a preposition, "as the case may be!" It is true, that "one and the same word" may sometimes be differently parsed by different grammarians, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the expression itself is equivocal. "All fled but John," is thought to mean equally well, "All fled but he," and, "All fled but him;" while these latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore erroneous, is to be corrected, rather than parsed in any way. But I deny both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics profess to find among the said phrases. "John fled not, but all the rest fled," is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form, "All fled but him," it is told ungrammatically; in the other two, correctly.
OBS. 18.—In Latin, cum with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed to have, the force of the conjunction et with a nominative; as, "Dux cum aliquot principibus capiuntur."—LIVY: W. Allen's Gram., p. 131. In imitation of this construction, some English writers have substituted with for and, and varied the verb accordingly; as, "A long course of time, with a variety of accidents and circumstances, are requisite to produce those revolutions."—HUME: Allen's Gram., p. 131; Ware's, 12; Priestley's, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his proof text under the following observation: "It is not necessary that the two subjects of an affirmation should stand in the very same construction, to require the verb to be in the plural number. If one of them be made to depend upon the other by a connecting particle, it may, in some cases, have the same force, as if it were independent of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 186. Lindley Murray, on the contrary, condemns this doctrine, and after citing the same example with others, says: "It is however, proper to observe that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by the just principles of construction."— Octavo Gram., p. 150. He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it. All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it. And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek. They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought. Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus assumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty.
OBS. 19.—Dr. Adam simply remarks, "The plural is sometimes used after the preposition cum put for et; as, Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt. Virg."—Latin and English Gram., p. 207; Gould's Adam's Latin Gram., p. 204; W. Allen's English Gram., 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better. Alexander has it in a worse form still: "Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt."—Latin Gram., p. 47. Virgil's words are, "Cana FIDES, et VESTA, Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt."—Æneid, B. i, l. 296. Nor is cum here "put for et," unless we suppose also an antiptosis of Remo fratre for Remus frater; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they correct in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: "The palace of Pizarro, together with the houses of several of his adherents, were pillaged by the soldiers."— Hist. of Amer., Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, "were" ought to be was. Secondly, if were be retained, "together with" ought to be changed to and, or and also. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, "The palace of Pizarro, as well as the houses of several of his adherents, was pillaged by the soldiers." Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: "And there appeared unto them Elias, with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus." If this text meant that the three disciples were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him;" and our version in Luke is, "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias."—Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the pronoun they, which our translators inserted, was meant for "Elias with Moses;" but the Greek verb for "appeared," as used by Mark, is singular, and agrees only with Elias. "[Greek: Kai ophthæ autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai hæsan syllalountes to Iæsoy.]"—"Et apparuit illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu."—Montanus. "Et visus est eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu."—Beza. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: "Et iis virent paroître Moyse et Elie, qui s'entretenoient avec Jésus." That is, "And there appeared to them Moses and Elias, who were talking with Jesus." Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, "And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and these two were talking with Jesus." There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, "The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, who with his brethren and sons were twelve."—1 Chron., xxv, 9. Better: "and he, his brethren, and his sons, were twelve."
OBS. 20.—Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting with for and; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such "a sort of addition made to it." The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable example, "Sidmouth, with Oliver the spye, have brought Brandreth to the block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The Tyrant, with the Spy, have brought Peter to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, has or have. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use and, and not with? After some further illustrations, he says: "When with means along with, together with, in Company with, and the like, it is nearly the same as and; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with his brothers, are able to do much.' Not, 'is able to do much.' If the pronoun be used instead of brothers, it will be in the objective case: 'He, with them, are able to do much.' But this is no impediment to the including of the noun (represented by them) in the nominative." I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist! The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, do much;' and not 'does much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it does nothing. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain:"—1 Tim., vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its meaning? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?
OBS. 21.—There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a real one,) in which there is either an ellipsis of the preposition with, or else the verb is made singular because the first noun only is its true subject, and the others are explanatory nominatives to which the same verb must be understood in the plural number; as, "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."—ADDISON: in Johnson's Dict., w. All. "Down comes the tree, nest, eagles, and all."—See All, ibidem. Here goes and comes are necessarily made singular, the former agreeing with torch and the latter with tree; and, if the other nouns, which are like an explanatory parenthesis, are nominatives, as they appear to me to be, they must be subjects of go and come understood. Cobbett teaches us to say, "The bag, with the guineas and dollars in it, were stolen," and not, was stolen. "For," says he, "if we say was stolen, it is possible for us to mean, that the bag only was stolen,"—English Gram., ¶ 246. And I suppose he would say, "The bag, guineas, dollars, and all, were stolen," and not, "was stolen;" for here a rule of syntax might be urged, in addition to his false argument from the sense. But the meaning of the former sentence is, "The bag was stolen, with the guineas and dollars in it;" and the meaning of the latter is, "The bag was stolen, guineas, dollars, and all." Nor can there be any doubt about the meaning, place the words which way you will; and whatever, in either case, may be the true construction of the words in the parenthetical or explanatory phrase, they should not, I think, prevent the verb from agreeing with the first noun only. But if the other nouns intervene without affecting this concord, and without a preposition to govern them, it may be well to distinguish them in the punctuation; as, "The bag, (guineas, dollars, and all,) was stolen."
NOTES TO RULE XVI.
NOTE I.—When the conjunction and between two nominatives appears to require a plural verb, but such form of the verb is not agreeable, it is better to reject or change the connective, that the verb may stand correctly in the singular number; as, "There is a peculiar force and beauty in this figure."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 224. Better: "There is a peculiar force, as well as a peculiar beauty, in this figure." "What means this restless stir and commotion of mind?"—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 242. Better: "What means this restless stir, this commotion of mind?"
NOTE II.—When two subjects or antecedents are connected, one of which is taken affirmatively, and the other negatively, they belong to different propositions; and the verb or pronoun must agree with the affirmative subject, and be understood to the other: as "Diligent industry, and not mean savings, produces honourable competence."—"Not a loud voice but strong proofs bring conviction."—"My poverty, but not my will, consents."—Shakespeare.
NOTE III.—When two subjects or antecedents are connected by as well as, but, or save, they belong to different propositions; and, (unless one of them is preceded by the adverb not,) the verb and pronoun must agree with the former and be understood to the latter: as, "Veracity, as well as justice, is to be our rule of life."—Butler's Analogy, p. 283. "The lowest mechanic, as well as the richest citizen, may boast that thousands of his fellow-creatures are employed for him."—Percival's Tales, ii, 177. "These principles, as well as every just rule of criticism, are founded upon the sensitive part of our nature."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. xxvi. "Nothing but wailings was heard."—"None but thou can aid us."—"No mortal man, save he," &c., "had e'er survived to say he saw."—Sir W. Scott.
NOTE IV.—When two or more subjects or antecedents are preceded by the adjective each, every, or no, they are taken separately; and, (except no be followed by a plural noun,) they require the verb and pronoun to be in the singular number: as, "No rank, no honour, no fortune, no condition in life, makes the guilty mind happy."—"Every phrase and every figure which he uses, tends to render the picture more lively and complete."—Blair's Rhet., p. 179.
"And every sense, and every heart, is joy."—Thomson.
"Each beast, each insect, happy in its own."—Pope.
NOTE V.—When any words or terms are to be taken conjointly as subjects or antecedents, the conjunction and, (in preference to with, or, nor, or any thing else,) must connect them. The following sentence is therefore inaccurate; with should be and; or else were should be was: "One of them, [the] wife of Thomas Cole, with her husband, were shot down, the others escaped."—Hutchinson's Hist., Vol. ii, p. 86. So, in the following couplet, or should be and, or else engines should be engine:
"What if the head, the eye, or ear repined,
To serve mere engines to the ruling mind?"—Pope.
NOTE VI.—Improper omissions must be supplied; but when there occurs a true ellipsis in the construction of joint nominatives or joint antecedents, the verb or pronoun must agree with them in the plural, just as if all the words were expressed: as, "The second and the third Epistle of John are each but one short chapter."—"The metaphorical and the literal meaning are improperly mixed."—Murray's Gram., p. 339. "The Doctrine of Words, separately consider'd, and in a Sentence, are Things distinct enough."—Brightland's Gram., Pref., p. iv. Better perhaps: "The doctrine of words separately considered, and that of words in a sentence, are things distinct enough."
"The Curii's and the Camilli's little field,
To vast extended territories yield."—Rowe's Lucan, B. i, l. 320.
NOTE VII.—Two or more distinct subject phrases connected by and, require a plural verb, and generally a plural noun too, if a nominative follow the verb; as, "To be wise in our own eyes, to be wise in the opinion of the world, and to be wise in the sight of our Creator, are three things so very different, as rarely to coincide."—Blair. "'This picture of my friend,' and 'This picture of my friend's,' suggest very different ideas."—Priestley's Gram., p. 71; Murray's, i, 178.
"Read of this burgess—on the stone appear,
How worthy he! how virtuous! and how dear!"—Crabbe.