[§ 488]. The concord of persons.—A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like ego et ille followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with ego, or in the third in order to agree with ille? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their dignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most worthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said—
Ego et Balbus sustulimus manus.
Tu et Balbus sustulistis manus.
Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we say I and you are friends, you and I are friends, I and he are friends, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.
Nevertheless, it may occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of different persons, and of the singular number, follow each other disjunctively, the question of concord arises. I or you,—you or
he,—he or I. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:—
1. Whenever the words either or neither precede the pronouns, the verb is in the third person. Either you or I is in the wrong; neither you nor I is in the wrong.
2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word either or neither) the verb agrees with the first of the two pronouns.
I (or he) am in the wrong.
He (or I) is in the wrong.