The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

RULE XVII.—FINITE VERBS.

When a Verb has two or more nominatives connected by or or nor, it must agree with them singly, and not as if taken together: as, "Fear or jealousy affects him."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 133. "Nor eye, nor listening ear, an object finds: creation sleeps."—Young. "Neither character nor dialogue was yet understood."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 151.

"The wife, where danger or dishonour lurks,
Safest and seemliest by her husband stays."—Milton, P. L., ix, 267.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XVII.

OBS. 1.—To this rule, so far as its application is practicable, there are properly no exceptions; for, or and nor being disjunctive conjunctions, the nominatives are of course to assume the verb separately, and as agreeing with each. Such agreement seems to be positively required by the alternativeness of the expression. Yet the ancient grammarians seldom, if at all, insisted on it. In Latin and Greek, a plural verb is often employed with singular nominatives thus connected; as,

"Tunc nec mens mini, nec color
Certa sede manent."—HORACE. See W. Allen's Gram., p. 133.

[Greek: "Ean de adelphos æ adelphæ lumnoi huparchosi, kai leipomenoi osi tæs ephæmerou trophæs.">[—James, ii. 15. And the best scholars have sometimes improperly imitated this construction in English; as, "Neither Virgil nor Homer were deficient in any of the former beauties."—DRYDEN'S PREFACE: Brit. Poets, Vol. iii, p. 168. "Neither Saxon nor Roman have availed to add any idea to his [Plato's] categories."—R. W. EMERSON: Liberator, No. 996.

"He comes—nor want nor cold his course delay:
Hide, blushing Glory! hide Pultowa's day."—Dr. Johnson.

"No monstrous height, or breadth, or length, appear;
The whole at once is bold and regular."—Pope, on Crit., l. 250.

OBS. 2.—When two collective nouns of the singular form are connected by or or nor, the verb may agree with them in the plural number, because such agreement is adapted to each of them, according to Rule 15th; as, "Why mankind, or such a part of mankind, are placed in this condition."—Butler's Analogy, p. 213. "But neither the Board of Control nor the Court of Directors have any scruples about sanctioning the abuses of which I have spoken."—Glory and Shame of England, Vol. ii, p. 70.

OBS. 3.—When a verb has nominatives of different persons or numbers, connected by or or nor, an explicit concord with each is impossible; because the verb cannot be of different persons or numbers at the same time; nor is it so, even when its form is made the same in all the persons and numbers: thus, "I, thou, [or] he, may affirm; we, ye, or they, may affirm."—Beattie's Moral Science, p. 36. Respecting the proper management of the verb when its nominatives thus disagree, the views of our grammarians are not exactly coincident. Few however are ignorant enough, or rash enough, to deny that there may be an implicit or implied concord in such cases,—a zeugma of the verb in English, as well as of the verb or of the adjective in Latin or Greek. Of this, the following is a brief example: "But he nor I feel more."—Dr. Young, Night iii, p. 35. And I shall by-and-by add others—enough, I hope, to confute those false critics who condemn all such phraseology.

OBS. 4.—W. Allen's rule is this: "If the nominatives are of different numbers or persons, the verb agrees with the last; as, he or his brothers were there; neither you nor I am concerned."—English Gram., p. 133. Lindley Murray, and others, say: (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 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."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 151; Smith's New Gram., 128; Alger's Gram., 54; Comly's, 78 and 79; Merchant's, 86; Picket's, 175; and many more. There are other grammarians who teach, that the verb must agree with the nominative which is placed next to it, whether this be singular or plural; as, "Neither the servants nor the master is respected;"—"Neither the master nor the servants are respected."—Alexander Murray's Gram., p. 65. "But if neither the writings nor the author is in existence, the Imperfect should be used."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 107.

OBS. 5.—On this point, a new author has just given us the following precept and criticism: "Never connect by or, or nor, two or more names or substitutes that have the same asserter [i.e. verb] depending on them for sense, if when taken separately, they require different forms of the asserters. Examples. 'Neither you nor I am concerned. Either he or thou wast there. Either they or he is faulty.' These examples are as erroneous as it would be to say, 'Neither you am concerned, nor am I.' 'Either he wast there, or thou wast.' 'Either they is faulty, or he is.' The sentences should stand thus—'Neither of us is concerned,' or, 'neither are you concerned, nor am I.' 'Either he was there, or thou wast.' 'Either they are faulty, or he is. They are, however, in all their impropriety, writen [sic—KTH] according to the principles of Goold Brown's grammar! and the theories of most of the former writers."—Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 252. We shall see by-and-by who is right.

OBS. 6.—Cobbett also—while he approves of such English as, "He, with them, are able to do much," for, "He and they are able to do much"—condemns expressly every possible example in which the verb has not a full and explicit concord with each of its nominatives, if they are connected by or or nor. His doctrine is this: "If nominatives of different numbers present themselves, we must not give them a verb which disagrees with either the one or the other. We must not say: 'Neither the halter nor the bayonets are sufficient to prevent us from obtaining our rights.' We must avoid this bad grammar by using a different form of words: as, 'We are to be prevented from obtaining our rights by neither the halter nor the bayonets.' And, why should we wish to write bad grammar, if we can express our meaning in good grammar?"—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 242. This question would have more force, if the correction here offered did not convey a meaning widely different from that of the sentence corrected. But he goes on: "We cannot say, 'They or I am in fault; I, or they, or he, is the author of it; George or I am the person.' Mr. Lindley Murray says, that we may use these phrases; and that we have only to take care that the verb agree with that person which is placed nearest to it; but, he says also, that it would be better to avoid such phrases by giving a different turn to our words. I do not like to leave any thing to chance or to discretion, when we have a clear principle for our guide."—Ib., ¶ 243. This author's "clear principle" is merely his own confident assumption, that every form of figurative or implied agreement, every thing which the old grammarians denominated zeugma, is at once to be condemned as a solecism. He is however supported by an other late writer of much greater merit. See Churchill's New Gram., pp. 142 and 312.

OBS. 7.—If, in lieu of their fictitious examples, our grammarians would give us actual quotations from reputable authors, their instructions would doubtless gain something in accuracy, and still more in authority. "I or they were offended by it," and, "I, or thou, or he, is the author of it," are expressions that I shall not defend. They imply an egotistical speaker, who either does not know, or will not tell, whether he is offended or not,—whether he is the author or not! Again, there are expressions that are unobjectionable, and yet not conformable to any of the rules just quoted. That nominatives may be correctly connected by or or nor without an express agreement of the verb with each of them, is a point which can be proved to as full certainty as almost any other in grammar; Churchill, Cobbett, and Peirce to the contrary notwithstanding. But with which of the nominatives the verb shall expressly agree, or to which of them it may most properly be understood, is a matter not easy to be settled by any sure general rule. Nor is the lack of such a rule a very important defect, though the inculcation of a false or imperfect one may be. So judged at least the ancient grammarians, who noticed and named almost every possible form of the zeugma, without censuring any as being ungrammatical. In the Institutes of English Grammar, I noted first the usual form of this concord, and then the allowable exceptions; but a few late writers, we see, denounce every form of it, exceptions and all: and, standing alone in their notions of the figure, value their own authority more than that of all other critics together.

OBS. 8.—In English, as in other languages, when a verb has discordant nominatives connected disjunctively, it most commonly agrees expressly with that which is nearest, and only by implication, with the more remote; as, "When some word or words are dependent on the attribute."—Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 153. "To the first of these qualities, dulness or refinements are dangerous enemies."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 15. "He hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or both are very honorably murdered."—Webster's Essays, p. 235. "The consequence is, that they frown upon everyone whose faults or negligence interrupts or retards their lessons."—W. C. Woodbridge: Lit. Conv., p. 114. "Good intentions, or at least sincerity of purpose, was never denied her."—West's Letters, p. 43. "Yet this proves not that either he or we judge them to be the rule."—Barclay's Works, i, 157. "First clear yourselves of popery before you or thou dost throw it upon us."—Ib., i, 169. "Is the gospel or glad tidings of this salvation brought nigh unto all?"—Ib., i, 362. "Being persuaded, that either they, or their cause, is naught."—Ib., i, 504. "And the reader may judge whether he or I do most fully acknowledge man's fall."—Ib., iii, 332. "To do justice to the Ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one, or any two, of the three Estates, have power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third."—Junius, Letter xvii. "The forest, or hunting-grounds, are deemed the property of the tribe."—Robertson's America, i, 313. "Birth or titles confer no preëminence."—Ib., ii, 184. "Neither tobacco nor hides were imported from Caraccas into Spain."—Ib., ii, 507. "The keys or seed-vessel of the maple has two large side-wings."—The Friend, vii, 97. "An example or two are sufficient to illustrate the general observation."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., i, 58.

"Not thou, nor those thy factious arts engage, Shall reap that harvest of rebellious rage."—Dryden, p. 60.

OBS. 9.—But when the remoter nominative is the principal word, and the nearer one is expressed parenthetically, the verb agrees literally with the former, and only by implication, with the latter; as, "One example, (or ten,) says nothing against it."—Leigh Hunt. "And we, (or future ages,) may possibly have a proof of it."—Bp. Butler. So, when the alternative is merely in the words, not in the thought, the former term is sometimes considered the principal one, and is therefore allowed to control the verb; but there is always a harshness in this mixture of different numbers, and, to render such a construction tolerable, it is necessary to read the latter term like a parenthesis, and make the former emphatic: as, "A parenthesis, or brackets, consists of two angular strokes, or hooks, enclosing one or more words."—Whiting's Reader, p. 28. "To show us that our own schemes, or prudence, have no share in our advancements."—Addison. "The Mexican figures, or picture-writing, represent things, not words; they exhibit images to the eye, not ideas to the understanding."—Murray's Gram., p. 243; English Reader, p. xiii. "At Travancore, Koprah, or dried cocoa-nut kernels, is monopolized by government."—Maunder's Gram., p. 12. "The Scriptures, or Bible, are the only authentic source."—Bp. Tomline's Evidences.

"Nor foes nor fortune take this power away;
And is my Abelard less kind than they?"—Pope, p. 334.

OBS. 10.—The English adjective being indeclinable, we have no examples of some of the forms of zeugma which occur in Latin and Greek. But adjectives differing in number, are sometimes connected without a repetition of the noun; and, in the agreement of the verb, the noun which is understood, is less apt to be regarded than that which is expressed, though the latter be more remote; as, "There are one or two small irregularities to be noted."—Lowth's Gram., p. 63. "There are one or two persons, and but one or two."—Hazlitt's Lectures. "There are one or two others."—Crombie's Treatise, p. 206. "There are one or two."—Blair's Rhet., p. 319. "There are one or more seminaries in every province."—H. E. Dwight: Lit. Conv., p. 133. "Whether one or more of the clauses are to be considered the nominative case."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 150. "So that, I believe, there is not more than one genuine example extant."—Knight, on the Greek Alphabet, p. 10. "There is, properly, no more than one pause or rest in the sentence."—Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 329; Blair's Rhet., p. 125. "Sometimes a small letter or two is added to the capital."—Adam's Lat. Gram., p. 223; Gould's, 283. Among the examples in the seventh paragraph above, there is one like this last, but with a plural verb; and if either is objectionable, is should here be are. The preceding example, too, is such as I would not imitate. To L. Murray, the following sentence seemed false syntax, because one does not agree with persons: "He saw one or more persons enter the garden."—Murray's Exercises, Rule 8th, p. 54. In his Key, he has it thus: "He saw one person, or more than one, enter the garden."—Oct. Gram., Vol. ii, p. 189. To me, this stiff correction, which many later grammarians have copied, seems worse than none. And the effect of the principle may be noticed in Murray's style elsewhere; as, "When a semicolon, or more than one, have preceded."—Octavo Gram., i, p. 277; Ingersoll's Gram., p. 288. Here a ready writer would be very apt to prefer one of the following phrases: "When a semicolon or two have preceded,"—"When one or two semicolons have preceded,"—"When one or more semicolons have preceded." It is better to write by guess, than to become systematically awkward in expression.

OBS. 11.—In Greek and Latin, the pronoun of the first person, according to our critics, is generally[398] placed first; as, "[Greek: Ego kai su ta dikaia poiæsomen]. Xen."—Milnes's Gr. Gram., p. 120. That is, "Ego et tu justa faciemus." Again: "Ego et Cicero valemus. Cic."—Buchanan's Pref., p. x; Adam's Gram., 206; Gould's, 203. "I and Cicero are well."—Ib. But, in English, a modest speaker usually gives to others the precedence, and mentions himself last; as, "He, or thou, or I, must go."—"Thou and I will do what is right."—"Cicero and I are well."—Dr. Adam.[399] Yet, in speaking of himself and his dependants, a person most commonly takes rank before them; as, "Your inestimable letters supported myself, my wife, and children, in adversity."—Lucien Bonaparte, Charlemagne, p. v. "And I shall be destroyed, I and my house."—Gen., xxxiv, 30. And in acknowledging a fault, misfortune, or censure, any speaker may assume the first place; as, "Both I and thou are in the fault."—Adam's Gram., p. 207. "Both I and you are in fault."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. ix. "Trusty did not do it; I and Robert did it."—Edgeworth's Stories.

"With critic scales, weighs out the partial wit,
What I, or you, or he, or no one writ."
—Lloyd's Poems, p. 162.

OBS. 12.—According to the theory of this work, verbs themselves are not unfrequently connected, one to an other, by and, or, or nor; so that two or more of them, being properly in the same construction, may be parsed as agreeing with the same nominative: as, "So that the blind and dumb [man] both spake and saw."—Matt., xii, 22. "That no one might buy or sell."—Rev., xiii, 17. "Which see not, nor hear, nor know."—Dan., v, 23. We have certainly very many examples like these, in which it is neither convenient nor necessary to suppose an ellipsis of the nominative before the latter verb, or before all but the first, as most of our grammarians do, whenever they find two or more finite verbs connected in this manner. It is true, the nominative may, in most instances, be repeated without injury to the sense; but this fact is no proof of such an ellipsis; because many a sentence which is not incomplete, may possibly take additional words without change of meaning. But these authors, (as I have already suggested under the head of conjunctions,) have not been very careful of their own consistency. If they teach, that, "Every finite verb has its own separate nominative, either expressed or implied," which idea Murray and others seem to have gathered from Lowth; or if they say, that, "Conjunctions really unite sentences, when they appear to unite only words," which notion they may have acquired from Harris; what room is there for that common assertion, that, "Conjunctions connect the same moods and tenses of verbs," which is a part of Murray's eighteenth rule, and found in most of our grammars? For no agreement is usually required between verbs that have separate nominatives; and if we supply a nominative wherever we do not find one for each verb, then in fact no two verbs will ever be connected by any conjunction.

OBS. 13.—What agreement there must be, between verbs that are in the same construction, it is not easy to determine with certainty. Some of the Latin grammarians tell us, that certain conjunctions connect "sometimes similar moods and tenses, and sometimes similar moods but different tenses." See Prat's Grammatica Latina, Octavo, Part ii, p. 95. Ruddiman, Adam, and Grant, omit the concord of tenses, and enumerate certain conjunctions which "couple like cases and moods." But all of them acknowledge some exceptions to their rules. The instructions of Lindley Murray and others, on this point, may be summed up in the following canon: "When verbs are connected by a conjunction, they must either agree in mood, tense, and form, or have separate nominatives expressed." This rule, (with a considerable exception to it, which other authors had not noticed.) was adopted by myself in the Institutes of English Grammar, and also retained in the Brief Abstract of that work, entitled, The First Lines of English Grammar. It there stands as the thirteenth in the series of principal rules; but, as there is no occasion to refer to it in the exercise of parsing, I now think, a less prominent place may suit it as well or better. The principle may be considered as being less certain and less important than most of the usual rules of syntax: I shall therefore both modify the expression of it, and place it among the notes of the present code. See Notes 5th and 6th below.

OBS. 14.—By the agreement of verbs with each other in form, it is meant, that the simple form and the compound, the familiar form and the solemn, the affirmative form and the negative, or the active form and the passive, are not to be connected without a repetition of the nominative. With respect to our language, this part of the rule is doubtless as important, and as true, as any other. A thorough agreement, then, in mood, tense, and form, is generally required, when verbs are connected by and, or, or nor; and, under each part of this concord, there may be cited certain errors which ought to be avoided, as will by-and-by be shown. But, at the same time, there seem to be many allowable violations of the rule, some or other of which may perhaps form exceptions to every part of it. For example, the tense may be varied, as it often is in Latin; thus, "As the general state of religion has been, is, or shall be, affected by them."—Butlers Analogy, p. 241. "Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shall be, because thou hast judged thus."—Rev., xvi, 5. In the former of these examples, a repetition of the nominative would not be agreeable; in the latter, it would perhaps be an improvement: as, "who art, and who wast, and who shalt be." (I here change the pronoun, because the relative which is not now applied as above.) "This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has been, or shall be published."—Campbell's Rhet. p. 207; Murray's Gram., p. 222. "It ought to be, 'has been, is, or shall be, published.'"—Crombie's Treatise, p. 383. "Truth and good sense are firm, and will establish themselves."—Blair's Rhet. p. 286. "Whereas Milton followed a different plan, and has given a tragic conclusion to a poem otherwise epic in its form."—Ib., p. 428. "I am certain, that such are not, nor ever were, the tenets of the church of England."—West's Letters, p. 148. "They deserve, and will meet with, no regard."—Blair's Rhet., p. 109.

"Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see,
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be."
—Pope, on Crit.

OBS. 15.—So verbs differing in mood or form may sometimes agree with the same nominative, if the simplest verb be placed first—rarely, I think, if the words stand in any other order: as, "One may be free from affectation and not have merit"—Blair's Rhet., p. 189. "There is, and can be, no other person."—Murray's Key. 8vo. p. 224. "To see what is, and is allowed to be, the plain natural rule."—Butler's Analogy, p. 284. "This great experiment has worked, and is working, well, every way well"—BRADBURN: Liberator, ix. 162. "This edition of Mr. Murray's works on English Grammar, deserves a place in Libraries, and will not fail to obtain it."—BRITISH CRITIC: Murray's Gram., 8vo, ii, 299.

"What nothing earthly gives, or can destroy."—Pope.

"Some are, and must be, greater than the rest."—Id.

OBS. 16.—Since most of the tenses of an English verb are composed of two or more words, to prevent a needless or disagreeable repetition of auxiliaries, participles, and principal verbs, those parts which are common to two or more verbs in the same sentence, are generally expressed to the first, and understood to the rest; or reserved, and put last, as the common supplement of each; as, "To which they do or can extend."—Butler's Analogy, p. 77. "He may, as any one may, if he will, incur an infamous execution from the hands of civil justice."—Ib., p. 82. "All that has usurped the name of virtue, and [has] deceived us by its semblance, must be a mockery and a delusion."—Dr. Chalmers. "Human praise, and human eloquence, may acknowledge it, but the Discerner of the heart never will" [acknowledge it].—Id. "We use thee not so hardly, as prouder livers do" [use thee].—Shak. "Which they might have foreseen and [might have] avoided."—Butler. "Every sincere endeavour to amend, shall be assisted, [shall be] accepted, and [shall be] rewarded."—Carter. "Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and [will] stand and [will] call on the name of the Lord his God, and [will] strike his hand over the place, and [will] recover the leper."—2 Kings, v, 11. "They mean to, and will, hear patiently."—Salem Register. That is, "They mean to hear patiently, and they will hear patiently." "He can create, and he destroy."—Bible. That is,—"and he can destroy."

"Virtue may be assail'd, but never hurt,
Surpris'd by unjust force, but not inthrall'd."—Milton.

"Mortals whose pleasures are their only care,
First wish to be imposed on, and then are."—Cowper.

OBS. 17.—From the foregoing examples, it may be seen, that the complex and divisible structure of the English moods and tenses, produces, when verbs are connected together, a striking peculiarity of construction in our language, as compared with the nearest corresponding construction in Latin or Greek. For we can connect different auxiliaries, participles, or principal verbs, without repeating, and apparently without connecting, the other parts of the mood or tense. And although it is commonly supposed that these parts are necessarily understood wherever they are not repeated, there are sentences, and those not a few, in which we cannot express them, without inserting also an additional nominative, and producing distinct clauses; as, "Should it not be taken up and pursued?"—Dr. Chalmers. "Where thieves do not break through nor steal."—Matt., vi, 20. "None present could either read or explain the writing-."—Wood's Dict., Vol. i, p. 159. Thus we sometimes make a single auxiliary an index to the mood and tense of more than one verb.

OBS. 18.—The verb do, which is sometimes an auxiliary and sometimes a principal verb, is thought by some grammarians to be also fitly made a substitute for other verbs, as a pronoun is for nouns; but this doctrine has not been taught with accuracy, and the practice under it will in many instances be found to involve a solecism. In this kind of substitution, there must either be a true ellipsis of the principal verb, so that do is only an auxiliary; or else the verb do, with its object or adverb, if it need one, must exactly correspond to an action described before; so that to speak of doing this or thus, is merely the shortest way of repeating the idea: as, "He loves not plays, as thou dost. Antony."—Shak. That is, "as thou dost love plays." "This fellow is wise enough to play the fool; and, to do that well, craves a kind of wit."—Id. Here, "to do that," is, "to play the fool." "I will not do it, if I find thirty there."—Gen., xviii, 30. Do what? Destroy the city, as had been threatened. Where do is an auxiliary, there is no real substitution; and, in the other instances, it is not properly the verb do, that is the substitute, but rather the word that follows it—or perhaps, both. For, since every action consists in doing something or in doing somehow, this general verb do, with this, that, it, thus, or so, to identify the action, may assume the import of many a longer phrase. But care must be taken not to substitute this verb for any term to which it is not equivalent; as, "The a is certainly to be sounded as the English do."—Walker's Dict., w. A. Say, "as the English sound it;" for do is here absurd, and grossly solecistical. "The duke had not behaved with that loyalty with which he ought to have done."—Lowth's Gram., p. 111; Murray's, i, 212; Churchill's, 355; Fisk's, 137; Ingersoll's, 269. Say, "with which he ought to have behaved;" for, to have done with loyalty is not what was meant—far from it. Clarendon wrote the text thus: "The Duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he ought to have done." This should have been corrected, not by changing "as" to "with which", but by saying—"with that loyalty which he ought to have observed;" or, "which would have become him".

OBS. 19.—It is little to the credit of our grammarians, to find so many of them thus concurring in the same obvious error, and even making bad English worse. The very examples which have hitherto been given to prove that do may be a substitute for other verbs, are none of them in point, and all of them have been constantly and shamefully misinterpreted. Thus: "They [do and did] sometimes also supply the place of another verb, and make the repetition of it, in the same or a subsequent sentence, unnecessary: as, 'You attend not to your studies as he does;' (i. e. as he attends, &c.) 'I shall come if I can; but if I do not, please to excuse me;' (i. e. if I come not.)"—L. Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 88; R. C. Smith's, 88; Ingersoll's, 135; Fisk's, 78; A. Flint's, 41; Hiley's, 30. This remark, but not the examples, was taken from Lowths Gram., p. 41. Churchill varies it thus, and retains Lowth's example: "It [i. e., do] is used also, to supply the place of another verb, in order to avoid the repetition of it: as, 'He loves not plays, As thou dost, Antony.' SHAKS."—New Gram., p. 96. Greenleaf says, "To prevent the repetition of one or more verbs, in the same, or [a] following sentence, we frequently make use of do AND did; as, 'Jack learns the English language as fast as Henry does;' that is, 'as fast as Henry learns.' 'I shall come if I can; but if I do not, please to excuse me;' that is, 'if I come not.'"—Gram. Simplified, p. 27. Sanborn says, "Do is also used instead of another verb, and not unfrequently instead of both the verb and its object; as, 'he loves work as well as you do;' that is, as well as you love work."—Analyt. Gram., p. 112. Now all these interpretations are wrong; the word do, dost, or does, being simply an auxiliary, after which the principal verb (with its object where it has one) is understood. But the first example is bad English, and its explanation is still worse. For, "As he attends, &c.," means, "As he attends to your studies!" And what good sense is there in this? The sentence ought to have been, "You do not attend to your studies, as he does to his." That is—"as he does attend to his studies." This plainly shows that there is, in the text, no real substitution of does for attends. So of all other examples exhibited in our grammars, under this head: there is nothing to the purpose, in any of them; the common principle of ellipsis resolves them all. Yet, strange to say, in the latest and most learned of this sort of text-books, we find the same sham example, fictitious and solecistical as it is, still blindly repeated, to show that "does" is not in its own place, as an auxiliary, but "supplies the place of another verb."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo. 1850. p. 265.

NOTES TO RULE XVII.

NOTE I.—When a verb has nominatives of different persons or numbers,[400] connected by or or nor, it must agree with the nearest, (unless an other be the principal term,) and must be understood to the rest, in the person and number required; as, "Neither you nor I am concerned."—W. Allen. "That neither they nor ye also die."—Numb., xviii, 3.

"But neither god, nor shrine, nor mystic rite,
Their city, nor her walls, his soul delight."
—Rowe's Lucan, B. x, l. 26.

NOTE II.—But, since all nominatives that require different forms of the verb, virtually produce separate clauses or propositions, it is better to complete the concord whenever we conveniently can, by expressing the verb or its auxiliary in connexion with each of them; as, "Either thou art to blame, or I am."—Comly's Gram., p. 78. "Neither were their numbers, nor was their destination, known."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 134. So in clauses connected by and: as, "But declamation is idle, and murmurs fruitless."—Webster's Essays, p. 82. Say,—"and murmurs are fruitless."

NOTE III.—In English, the speaker should always mention himself last; unless his own superior dignity, or the confessional nature of the expression, warrant him in taking the precedence: as, "Thou or I must go."—"He then addressed his discourse to my father and me."—"Ellen and I will seek, apart, the refuge of some forest cell."—Scott. See Obs. 11th above.

NOTE IV.—Two or more distinct subject phrases connected by or or nor, require a singular verb; and, if a nominative come after the verb, that must be singular also: as, "That a drunkard should be poor, or that a fop should be ignorant, is not strange."—"To give an affront, or to take one tamely, is no mark of a great mind." So, when the phrases are unconnected: as, "To spread suspicion, to invent calumnies, to propagate scandal, requires neither labour nor courage."—Rambler, No. 183.

NOTE V.—In general, when verbs are connected by and, or, or nor, they must either agree in mood, tense, and form, or the simplest in form must be placed first; as, "So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh."—Isaiah, xxxvii, 37. "For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die."—Acts, xxv, 11.

NOTE VI.—In stead of conjoining discordant verbs, it is in general better to repeat the nominative or insert a new one; as, "He was greatly heated, and [he] drank with avidity."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 201. "A person may be great or rich by chance; but cannot be wise or good, without taking pains for it."—Ib., p. 200. Say,—"but no one can be wise or good, without taking pains for it."

NOTE VII.—A mixture of the forms of the solemn style and the familiar, is inelegant, whether the verbs refer to the same nominative or have different ones expressed; as, "What appears tottering and in hazard of tumbling, produceth in the spectator the painful emotion of fear."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 356. "And the milkmaid singeth blithe, And the mower whets his sithe."—Milton's Allegro, l. 65 and 66.

NOTE VIII.—To use different moods under precisely the same circumstances, is improper, even if the verbs have separate nominatives; as, "Bating that one speak and an other answers, it is quite the same."—Blair's Rhet., p. 368. Say,—"that one speaks;" for both the speaking and the answering are assumed as facts.

NOTE IX.—When two terms are connected, which involve different forms of the same verb, such parts of the compound tenses as are not common to both forms, should be inserted in full: except sometimes after the auxiliary do; as, "And then he falls, as I do."—Shak. That is, "as I do fall." The following sentences are therefore faulty: "I think myself highly obliged to make his fortune, as he has mine."—Spect., No. 474. Say,—"as he has made mine." "Every attempt to remove them, has, and likely will prove unsuccessful."—Gay's Prosodical Gram., p. 4. Say,—"has proved, and likely will prove, unsuccessful."

NOTE X.—The verb do must never be substituted for any term to which its own meaning is not adapted; nor is there any use in putting it for a preceding verb that is equally short: as, "When we see how confidently men rest on groundless surmises in reference to their own souls, we cannot wonder that they do it in reference to others."—Simeon. Better:—"that they so rest in reference to the souls of others;" for this repeats the idea with more exactness. NOTE XI.—The preterit should not be employed to form the compound tenses of the verb; nor should the perfect participle be used for the preterit or confounded with the present. Thus: say, "To have gone," not, "To have went;" and, "I did so," not, "I done so;" or, "He saw them," not, "He seen them." Again: say not, "It was lift or hoist up;" but, "It was lifted or hoisted up."

NOTE XII.—Care should be taken, to give every verb or participle its appropriate form, and not to confound those which resemble each other; as, to flee and to fly, to lay and to lie, to sit and to set, to fall and to fell, &c. Thus: say, "He lay by the fire;" not, "He laid by the fire;"—"He has become rich;" not, "He is become rich;"—"I would rather stay;" not, "I had rather stay."

NOTE XIII.—In the syntax of words that express time, whether they be verbs, adverbs, or nouns, the order and fitness of time should be observed, that the tenses may be used according to their import. Thus: in stead of, "I have seen him last week;" say, "I saw him last week;"—and, in stead of, "I saw him this week;" say, "I have seen him this week." So, in stead of, "I told you already;" or, "I have told you before;" say, "I have told you already;"—"I told you before."

NOTE XIV.—Verbs of commanding, desiring, expecting, hoping, intending, permitting, and some others, in all their tenses, refer to actions or events, relatively present or future: one should therefore say, "I hoped you would come;" not, "I hoped you would have come;"—and, "I intended to do it;" not, "I intended to have done it;"—&c.

NOTE XV.—Propositions that are as true now as they ever were or will be, should generally be expressed in the present tense: as, "He seemed hardly to know, that two and two make four;" not, "made."—Blair's Gram., p. 65. "He will tell you, that whatever is, is right." Sometimes the present tense is improper with the conjunction that, though it would be quite proper without it; as, "Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet."—Mark, vi, 15. Here That should be omitted, or else is should be was. The capital T is also improper.