CHAPTER XVI.
THE CONCORD OF VERBS.
[§ 475]. The verb must agree with its subject in person, I walk, not I walks: he walks, not he walk.
It must also agree with it in number,—we walk, not we walks: he walks, not he walk.
Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb.
A. It is I, your master, who command you. Query? would it is I, your master, who commands you, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.
B. The wages of sin is death. Query? would the wages of sin are death be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb.
[§ 476]. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry us through a portion of the difficulties.
Rule.—In sentences where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,—I, your master, command you (not commands): your master, I, commands you (not command).
To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is
necessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun substantive and a pronoun,—I, the keeper; he, the merchant, &c.
Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person—John speaks, the men run, the commander gives orders. Consequently the verb is of the third person also.
But the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second: I or thou—I the commander—thou the commander.—In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which requires a first or second?
Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and, undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a similar construction in respect to number—a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression I, your master, the ideas are two; viz., the idea expressed by I, and the idea expressed by master. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single. Your master, I, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning the master, and it is intended to say what he does. The word I merely
defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both.
From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute.
Rule.—In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first.
[§ 477]. But the expression it is I your master, who command (or commands) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions.
1. It is I.
2. Who commands you.
Here the word master is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into
Either—it is I your master—
Or—your master who commands you.
This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (command or commands) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i.e., in the particular case before us, not by either I or master, but by who.
And this brings us to the following question—with which of the two antecedents does the relative agree? with I or with master?
This may be answered by the two following rules;—
Rule 1.—When the two antecedents are in the
same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus—
1. It is I your master—
2. Who command you.
Rule 2.—When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus—
1. It is I—
2. Your master who commands you.
This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called the distribution of the substantive antecedent will bear criticism.
Rule 1. That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word master is logically connected with the word command; and this fact makes the expression, It is I your master who commands you the better of the two.
Rule 2. That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause. It is I, John, who command (not commands) you.
To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:—
1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.
2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.
3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself.
4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.
Respecting the person of the verb in the first proposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt. I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am (not is) in a hurry. Here, I am in a hurry is the first proposition; who commands you to make haste, the second.
It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence.
[§ 478]. The concord of number.—It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.
Rule 1. That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression as the wages of sin is death, is to consider death not as the subject, but as the predicate; in other words, to consider the construction to be, death is the wages of sin.
Rule 2. That, except in the case of the word there, the word which comes first is generally the subject.
Rule 3. That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. The sun and moon shine,—the sun in conjunction with the moon shines.
[§ 479]. Plural subjects with singular predicates.—-
The wages of sin are death.—Honest men are the salt of the earth.
Singular subjects with plural predicates.—These constructions are rarer than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more.
Sixpence is twelve halfpennies.
He is all head and shoulders.
Vulnera totus erat.
Tu es deliciæ meæ.
Ἑκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,
Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.