through a mistake of the construction. For the same reason, we ought to say, 'I shall consider his censures so far only, us concerns my friend's conduct;' and not, so far as concern.”

Other writers contend, that the word as is equivalent to it, that, or which; and that as in the phrases mentioned, is the true nominative to the verbs follows and appears; which should consequently be written, as follow, as appear. They assert that as is used either in the singular or the plural number: in the singular: as, "His insensibility is such as excites our detestation" in the plural thus: "His manners are such, as are universally pleasing." That, in the former example, such as is equivalent to that which, and in the latter to those which That if as be either singular or plural, and synonomous with it, that, or which, it must, when it refers to a plural antecedent, like which, be considered as plural, and joined to a plural verb. That it is more consonant with analogy to say; "The circumstances were, which follow," than it follows, or that follows. They further observe, that when the demonstrative such precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it is universally admitted, that as must then be followed by a plural verb: if so, the construction of the word as cannot be, in the least degree, affected by the ellipsis of the correlative term.

The diversity of sentiment on this subject, and the respectability of the differer opponents, will naturally induce the readers to pause and reflect, before they decide. They who doubt the accuracy of Horne Tooke's statement, "That as, however and whenever used in English, means the same as it, or that, or which;" and who are not satisfied whether the verbs, in the sentences first mentioned, should be in the singular or the plural number, may vary the form of expression. Thus, the meaning of the sentences alluded to, may be conveyed in the following terms, or in other equivalent expressions. "The arguments advanced were nearly such as follow;" "The arguments advanced were nearly of the following nature;" "The following are nearly the arguments which were advanced," "The arguments advanced were nearly those which follow;" "These, or nearly these, were the arguments advanced" "The positions were such as appear incontrovertible;" "It appears that the positions were incontrovertible;" "That the positions were incontrovertible, is apparent ;" "The positions were apparently incontrovertible;""In appearance, the positions were incontrovertible,"

It has been advanced as a rule of grammar, that "When the nominative consists of several words, and the last of the

nouns is in the plural number, the verb is commonly plural: as, "A part of the exports consist of raw silk;" "A number of men and women were present;""The train of our ideas are often interrupted." The support of this rule has been ingeniously attempted, by the following observations: "The whole of the words, in the first part of each of the preceding sentences, or the noun and its adjuncts, are the actual nominative. Separate the words part and exports, in the first example, and the affirmation of the verb cannot with truth be applied to either; and as the whole must be considered as the nominative, the verb is very naturally connected in number with the last noun." This reasoning, how plausible soever it may, at first sight, appear, is certainly destitute of solidity. It would counteract some of the plainest principles of grammar; and would justify the following constructions, and a multitude of others of a similar nature. "The truth of the narratives have never been disputed;" "The virtue of these men and women, are indeed exemplary:" "A fondness for such distinctions, render a man ridiculous;" "A deviation from good principles, soon produce a deviation from good conduct." In each of these instances, it may be said, as our opponents say in support of the proposed rule, that if we separate the two nouns, the affirmation cannot with truth be applied to either: the verb respects the whole preceding phrase, in the one case as much as in the other. But will it hence follow, that the verb is to be connected in number with the last noun? The truth is, the assertion grammatically respects the first nouns in all the preceding instances. The adjuncts are connected with those nouns, as subordinate parts, or as modifications, and are put in the objective case, governed by the prepositions. The latter nouns cannot therefore be the nominatives to the respective verbs; they cannot be, at the same time. in the nominative and objective cases. That a sentence, or part of a sentence, may be the nominative to a verb, is undoubtedly true but, in these cases, the construction is obviously different from that which exists in the cases enumerated under the proposed rule, In the former, there is no prominent object to which the verb chiefly relates; and the whole preceding part must therefore be considered as the nominative in the latter, there is a capital, leading object, which attracts the verb, and which supports the dependent circumstances.

RULE II.

Two or more nouns, &c. in the singular number, joined together by a copulative conjunction, expressed or understood, must have verbs, nouns, and pronouns, agreeing with them in the plural number: as, "Socrates and Plato were wise: they were the most eminent philosophers of Greece;" "The sun that rolls over our heads, the food that we receive, the rest that we enjoy, daily admonish us of a superior and superintending Power."*

See Vol. ii. Part 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 2.

THIS rule is often violated; some instances of which are annexed. "And so was also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon;"" and so were also." "All joy, tranquility, and peace, even for ever and ever, doth dwell;" "dwell for ever." "By whose power all good and evil is distributed;"" are distributed." "Their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;" perished." "The thoughtless and intemperate enjoyment of pleasure, the criminal abuse of it, and the forgetfulness of our being accountable creatures, obliterates every serious thought of the proper business of life, and effaces the sense of religion and of God." It ought to be," obliterate," and "efface."

1. When the nouns are nearly related, or scarcely distinguishable in sense, and sometimes even when they are very different, some authors have thought it allowable to put the verbs, nouns, and pronouns, in the singular number: as, "Tranquillity and peace dwells there;" "Ignorance and negligence has produced the effect;" "The discomfiture and slaughter was very great." But it is evidently contrary to the first principles of grammar, to consider two distinct ideas as one, however nice may be their shades of difference and if there be no difference, one of them must be superfluous, and ought to be rejected.

To support the above construction, it is said, that the verb may be understood as applied to each of the preceding terms; as in the following example: "Sand, and salt, and a mass of iron, is easier to bear than a man without understanding."

* For the exceptions to this Rule, see Vol. ii. Part 3. Key. Chap. 1. Rule 8. The note,

But besides the confusion, and the latitude of application, which such a construction would introduce, it appears to be more proper and analogical, in cases where the verb is intended to be applied to any one of the terms, to make use of the disjunctive conjunction, which grammatically refers the verb to one or other of the preceding terms in a separate view. To preserve the distinctive uses of the copulative and disjunctive conjunctions, would render the rules precise, consistent, and intelligible. 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 is the general sentiment of English grammarians.

2. In many complex sentences, it is difficult for learners to determine, whether one or more of the clauses are to be considered as the nominative case; and consequently, whether the verb should be in the singular or the plural number. We shall, therefore, set down a number of varied examples of this nature, which may serve as some government to the scholar, with respect to sentences of a similar construction. Prosperity, with humility, renders its possessor truly amiable." The ship, with all her furniture, was destroyed." "Not only his estate, his reputation too has suffered by his misconduct." "The general also, in conjunction with the officers, has applied for redress." "He cannot be justified; for it is true, that the prince, as well as the people, was blameworthy." "The king, with bis life-guard, has just passed through the village.' "In the mutual influence of body and soul, there is a wisdom, a wonderful wisdom, which we cannot fathom." "Virtue, honour, nay, even self-interest, conspire to recom mend the measure." "Patriotism, morality, every public and private consideration, demand our submission to just and lawful government." "Nothing delights me so much as the works of nature."-See Vol. i. Part 1. Exercises. Chap. 1.Sec. 9.

ment."

In support of such forms of expression as the following, we see the authority of Hume, Priestly, and other writers; and we annex them for the reader's consideration. "A long course of time, with a variety of accidents and circumstances, are requisite to produce those revolutions." "The king, with the lords and commons, form an excellent frame of govern"The side A, with the sides B and C, compose the triangle." "The fire communicated itself to the bed, which, with the furniture of the room, and a valuable library, were all entirely consumed." It is however, proper to observe, that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by the just principles of construction. The words, "A long course of time," "The king," "The side A," and

"which," are the true nominatives to the respective verbs. In the last example, the word all should be expunged. As the preposition with governs the objective case, in English; and if translated into Latin, would govern the ablative case, it is manifest, that the clauses following with, in the preceding sentences, cannot form any part of the nominative case. They cannot be at the same time in the objective and the nominative cases. The following sentence appears to be unexceptionable; and may serve to explain the others." The lords and commons are essential branches of the British constitution the king, with them, forms an excellent frame of government."*

3. If the singular nouns and pronouns, which are joined together by a copulative conjunction, be of several persons, in making the plural pronoun agree with them in person, the second person takes place of the third, and the first of both: as," James, and thou, and I, are attached to our country." "Thou and he shared it between you."

RULE III.

THE Conjunction disjunctive has an effect contrary to that of the conjunction copulative; for as the verb, noun, or pronoun, is referred to the preceding terms taken separately, it must be in the singular number: as, "Ignorance or negligence has caused this mistake;" "John, James, or Joseph, intends to accompany me;" "There is, in many minds, neither knowledge nor understanding."

See Vol. ii. Part 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 3.

66

THE following sentences are variations from this rule. "A man may see a metaphor or an allegory in a picture, as well as read them in a description;""read it." "Neither character nor dialogue were yet understood;" was yet." "It must indeed be confessed, that a lampoon or a satire, do not carry in them robbery or murder ;"" does not carry in it." "Death, or some other misfortune, soon divide them." It ought to be "divides."

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

*Though the construction will not admit of a plural verb, the sentence would certainly stand better thus: "The king, the lords, and the commons, form an excellent constitution."