« PreviousContinue »
RULE XI. The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb ; but when a nominative intervenes, the relative is governed loy some word in its own member of the sentence.
RULE XII. The article refers to a noun or pronoun, expressed or understood, to limit its signification.
RULE XIII. Every adjective, adjective pronoun, and participle, will belong to some noun either expressed or understood ; as, “ He is a good man." Few are happy."
RULE XIV. One noun governs another signifying a different thing, in the posses-' sive case.
QUESTIONS, &c. You may begin with repeating all the Rules in the Lesson. In the example under Rule sixth, why is were plural ?In the example under Rule seventh, why is intends singular?
Patience and diligence, like faith, removes mountains.” — Our happiness or misery are placed in our own hands.”—In the first of these sentences, is there any violation of Rule sixth ?-In the second, is there any violation of Rule seventh ?- In the example under Rule eighth, why is the verb plural, when the noninative is singular ?- In the first example under Rule ninth, in what case is child ?- In what case is Christian, in the second exainple ?- In the example under rule tenth, in what number and person is who ?-By what
Rule is whó nominative to lovest?-By what Rule is lovest in the second person, and singular number?- In the second example under Rule twelfth, to what noun do the adjectives few and happy belong ?—My father's house ;' --In what case is father's ?-By what rule is it governed by house?
· REVIEW. OF Rule VI.--When a copulative conjunction connects' two or more nouns which refer to the same person or thing, the verb should be singular; as ' That able scholar and critic has been eminently useful to the cause of religion.'
When the pronoun every, expressed or understood, belongs to each of the nominatives which are connected by a copulative conjunction, the verb also should be singular; as, “Every leaf, twig, and drop of water teems with life.?
When the nouns are nearly related, or scarcely distinguishable in sense, some authors have improperly thought it allowable to put the verbs, nouns, and pronouns, in the singular number. The following sentences are ungrammatical. "Tranquillity and peace dwells there;' Ignorance and negligence has produced the effect.'
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 plural Qumber. The following are correct examples of both numbers. "The ship, with all her furniture, was destroyed;' "The prince, as well as the people, was blameworthy. Virtue, honour, nay, even self-interest, conspire to recommend the measure.' 'Nothing delights me so much as the works of nature.'
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 takes place of the third, and the first
of both; as, "Thou and he shared it between you.' James, and thou, and I, are attached to our country.'
OF RULE VII.- Wher 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.
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; but in this case, when it can be done, the plural noun or pronoun should be placed next to the verb; as, 'Neither poverty nor riches were injurious to him; "I or they were offended by it."
OF RULE VIII.-In using the noun of multitude, special regard must be had to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea. We should consider, whether the term immediately suggests the idea of the number it represents, or whether it exhibits to the mind the idea of the whole, as one thing. In the former case, the verb ought to be plural; in the latter, it ought to be singular. Thus, it seems improper to say, 'The peasantry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes.' It would be better to say, 'The peasantry go barefoot, and the middle sort make use,' &c.; because the idea in both these cases is that of a number. On the contrary, there is a harshness in the following sentences, in which nouns of number have verbs plural: because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind. The court of Rome were not without solicitude.' "The house of commons were of small weight.' "The house of lords were so much influenced by these reasons.' 'Stephen's party were entirely broken up by the captivity of their leader.' "An army of twenty-four thousand were assembled.' "What reason have the church of Rome for proceeding in this manner?' "There is indeed no constitution so tame and careless of their own defence.' "All the virtues of mankind are to be counted upon a few figures, but his follies and vices are innumerable. Is not mankind in this place a noun of multitude, and such
as requires the pronoun referring to it, to be in the plural number their?
When a noun of multitude is preceded by a definitive word, which clearly limits the sense to an aggregate with an idea of unity, it requires a verb and pronoun to agree with it in the singular number: as, ' A company of troops was detached: a troop of cavalry was raised; this people is become a great nation; that assembly was numerous, a great number of men and women was collected.'
Of Rule IX.-This Rule is little more than a repetition of Rule I. As the neuter and passive verbs do not generally govern a case, it is plain that when they have a noun or pronoun on either side of them, meaning the same thing, or referring to the same, they ought to be in the same case.
OF Rule X.--Other pronouns, besides the relative, agree with their antecedents in gender and number; the relative in gender, number, and person.
Every relative must have an antecedent to which it refers, either expressed or implied: as, “Who is fatal to others, is so to himself; that is, ' the man who is fatal to others.
Who, which, what, and the relative that, though in the objective case, are always placed before the verb ; as are also their compounds, whoever, whosoever, &c. : as, "He whom ye seek;' this is what you want;' i. e. 'that which you want, or the thing which, or that which you want ;' "Whomsoever you please to appoint.'
What is very frequently used as the representative of two cases; one the objective after a verb or preposition, and the other, the nominative to a subsequent verb: as, 'I heard what was said.' 'He related what was seen.”
According to what was proposed.' "We do not constantly love what has done us good.-This peculiar construction may be explained, by resolving what into that which: as, I heard that which was said,' &c.
In a few instances, the relative is introduced as the nominative to a verb, before the sentence or clause which it.represents: as, “There was therefore, which is all that we assert, a course of life pursued by them, different from that which they before led.' Here, the relative which is the representative of the whole of the last part
of the sentence; and its natural position is after that clause.
Whatever relative is used, in one of a series of clauses relating to the same antecedent, the same relative ought generally to be used in them all. In the following sentence, this rule is violated: “It is remarkable, that Holland, against which the war was undertaken, and that, in the very beginning, was reduced to the brink of destruction, lost nothing. The clause ought to have been, and which in the very beginning.'
The relative frequently refers to a whole clause in the sentence, instead of a particular word in it: as, 'The resolution was adopted hastily, and without due consideration, which produced great dissatisfaction;' that is,
which thing,' namely the hasty adoption of the resolution.
The pronoun that, is frequently applied to persons as well as to things; and after an adjective in the superlative degree, and after the pronominal adjective same, it is generally used in preference to who or which : as, 'Charles XII. king of Sweden, was one of the greatest madmen that the world ever saw;' Catiline's followers were the most profligate that could be found in any city,' 'He is the same man that we saw before.'
There are cases, wherein we cannot conveniently dispense with the relative that, as applied to persons: as, first, aiter who the interrogative; Who that has any sense of religion, would have argued thus?' Secondly, when persons make but a part of the antecedent; “The woman, and the estate, that became his portion, were rewards far beyond his desert.' In neither of these examples could any other relative have been used.
The pronoun relative who is so much appropriated to persons, that there is generally harshness in the application of it, except to the proper names of persons, or the general terms man, woman, &c. A term which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of it: as, “That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions. That faction which,' would have been better; and the same remark will serve for the following examples: “France, who