"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.