CHAPTER I.OF CONCORD.

Rule I.—A verb agrees with its nominative in number and person, as,

We teachHe learns

whereweandteachare each plural, and of the first person;heandlearnsare each singular, and of the third person.

Note1.—This rule is violated in such examples as these, “I likes,” “thou loves,” “he need,” “you was.” In reference to the last example, the reader should observe, thatyouis plural, whether it relate to only one individual or to more, and ought therefore to be joined with a plural verb. It is no argument to say, that when we address a single person, we should use a verb singular; for were this plea admissible, we ought to say, “you wast,” forwastis the second person singular, and not “you was,” forwasis the first or third. Besides, no one says, “you is,” or “you art,” but “you are.”Note2.—The nominative to a verb is known by putting the question, Who? or What? to the verb, as,I read; Who reads? Ans.I.Note3.—The infinitive often supplies the place of a nominative to a verb, thus, “To excel in every laudable pursuit should be the aim of every one.” What should be the aim? Ans. “To excel.”Note4.—As, considered now as a conjunction, but being, in its primitive signification, equivalent toit,that, orwhich, likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, “As far as regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful notto offend.” Some grammarians supposeitto be understoodNote5.—A verb is frequently construed with a whole clause as its nominative, thus, “His being at enmity with Cæsar was the cause of perpetual discord;” where,his being at enmity, the subject of the affirmation, forms the nominative to the verb.Note6.—The nominative, when the verb expresses command or entreaty, is often suppressed, as, “speak,” for “speak thou,” “honour the king,” for “honour ye the king.” It is also frequently suppressed in poetry, as “Lives there, who loves his pain?”Milton:—i.e.“Lives there a man?” “To whom the monarch;”repliedbeing understood.Note7.—A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a plural verb, as, “Tensailof the lineweredescried at a distance.” It has been already observed, that the plural termination is sometimes suppressed, as, “ten thousand,” “three brace,” “four pair.”Note8.—Priestley has said, that when the particlethereis prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, “without a very sensible impropriety.” But, if there be an impropriety at all, why should the phraseology be adopted? His example is this, “There necessarily follows from thence these plain and unquestionable consequences.” Nothing, we apprehend, can justify this violation of analogy. It should be, “follow.” Would Dr. Priestley have said “Thereismen who never reason?”Note9.—The nominative generally precedes the verb, and is, in some examples, known by nothing but its place. This arrangement, however, is sometimes altered, and the verb placed before the nominative.1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, “Does wealth make men happy?” Here the nominativewealthfollows the auxiliary: “wealth does” would denote affirmation. “Stands Scotland where it did?” Here also the nominative follows the verb, to denote interrogation[119].2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as “go thou,” “read ye.”3rdly. When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the conditional particleifbeing understood, as, “Were I Alexander,” said Parmenio, “I would accept the offer,” where “were I,” is equivalent to “if I were.”4thly. After the introductory wordthere, as “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.” “There are many who have the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other acquirement.” This arrangement is preferable to “a man was sent,” “many are,” &c.; and, as a general rule, I observe, that this collocation is not only proper but requisite, when a sentiment of importance is to be introduced to the hearer’s particular attention.5thly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehement emotion, or when vivacity and force are to be imparted to the expression, the nominative energetically follows the verb, as, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Alter the arrangement, saying, “Diana of the Ephesians is great,” and you efface the signature of impetuosity, and render the expression frigid and unaffecting. “Blessed is he, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” “He is blessed” would convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation into a cold aphorism. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great city.” The energy of the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge, from theepijeuxisor reduplication[120].6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, when the sentence or member begins withnororneither, as, “Nordid wedoubt that rectitude of conduct would eventually prove itself the best policy.” Thus also is placed the principal verb, as, “Nor left he in the city a soul alive.”Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb should precede the nominative, there are several others not easily reducible to any precise rule. In general, however, it may be remarked, that the place of the nominative depends, in some degree, on its connexion with other parts of the sentence. “Hence appears the impossibility, that this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”Impossibilitybeing here in sense closely connected with the following words, this arrangement is preferable to that in the original. Hume says, “Hence the impossibility appears, that this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but signification singular, require a singular verb, as, “Mathematics is a useful study.” This observation, however, is not justified by general usage, reputable writers being in this case much divided. (Seep. 19.)

Note2.—The nominative to a verb is known by putting the question, Who? or What? to the verb, as,I read; Who reads? Ans.I.

Note3.—The infinitive often supplies the place of a nominative to a verb, thus, “To excel in every laudable pursuit should be the aim of every one.” What should be the aim? Ans. “To excel.”

Note4.—As, considered now as a conjunction, but being, in its primitive signification, equivalent toit,that, orwhich, likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, “As far as regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful notto offend.” Some grammarians supposeitto be understood

Note5.—A verb is frequently construed with a whole clause as its nominative, thus, “His being at enmity with Cæsar was the cause of perpetual discord;” where,his being at enmity, the subject of the affirmation, forms the nominative to the verb.

Note6.—The nominative, when the verb expresses command or entreaty, is often suppressed, as, “speak,” for “speak thou,” “honour the king,” for “honour ye the king.” It is also frequently suppressed in poetry, as “Lives there, who loves his pain?”Milton:—i.e.“Lives there a man?” “To whom the monarch;”repliedbeing understood.

Note7.—A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a plural verb, as, “Tensailof the lineweredescried at a distance.” It has been already observed, that the plural termination is sometimes suppressed, as, “ten thousand,” “three brace,” “four pair.”

Note8.—Priestley has said, that when the particlethereis prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, “without a very sensible impropriety.” But, if there be an impropriety at all, why should the phraseology be adopted? His example is this, “There necessarily follows from thence these plain and unquestionable consequences.” Nothing, we apprehend, can justify this violation of analogy. It should be, “follow.” Would Dr. Priestley have said “Thereismen who never reason?”

Note9.—The nominative generally precedes the verb, and is, in some examples, known by nothing but its place. This arrangement, however, is sometimes altered, and the verb placed before the nominative.

1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, “Does wealth make men happy?” Here the nominativewealthfollows the auxiliary: “wealth does” would denote affirmation. “Stands Scotland where it did?” Here also the nominative follows the verb, to denote interrogation[119].

2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as “go thou,” “read ye.”

3rdly. When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the conditional particleifbeing understood, as, “Were I Alexander,” said Parmenio, “I would accept the offer,” where “were I,” is equivalent to “if I were.”

4thly. After the introductory wordthere, as “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.” “There are many who have the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other acquirement.” This arrangement is preferable to “a man was sent,” “many are,” &c.; and, as a general rule, I observe, that this collocation is not only proper but requisite, when a sentiment of importance is to be introduced to the hearer’s particular attention.

5thly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehement emotion, or when vivacity and force are to be imparted to the expression, the nominative energetically follows the verb, as, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Alter the arrangement, saying, “Diana of the Ephesians is great,” and you efface the signature of impetuosity, and render the expression frigid and unaffecting. “Blessed is he, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” “He is blessed” would convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation into a cold aphorism. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great city.” The energy of the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge, from theepijeuxisor reduplication[120].

6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, when the sentence or member begins withnororneither, as, “Nordid wedoubt that rectitude of conduct would eventually prove itself the best policy.” Thus also is placed the principal verb, as, “Nor left he in the city a soul alive.”

Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb should precede the nominative, there are several others not easily reducible to any precise rule. In general, however, it may be remarked, that the place of the nominative depends, in some degree, on its connexion with other parts of the sentence. “Hence appears the impossibility, that this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”Impossibilitybeing here in sense closely connected with the following words, this arrangement is preferable to that in the original. Hume says, “Hence the impossibility appears, that this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”

Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but signification singular, require a singular verb, as, “Mathematics is a useful study.” This observation, however, is not justified by general usage, reputable writers being in this case much divided. (Seep. 19.)

Rule II.—Two or more substantives singular, denoting different things, being equivalent to a plural, take a plural verb; or, when two or more substantives singular are collectively subjects of discourse, they require a plural verb, and plural representatives, as, “Cato and Cicerowerelearned men; andtheylovedtheircountry.”

Note1.—This rule is violated in such examples as this, “I do not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of mind, which fortune and your own wisdomhasgiven you, could be better employed.”—Swift.Note2.—It was customary with the writers of antiquity, when the substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a verb singular, as,mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est, “understanding, reason, and prudenceisin old men.” In imitation of these, some English authors have, in similar instances, employed a verb singular. I concur, however, with L. Murray in disapproving this phraseology. For either the terms are synonymous, or they are not. If their equivalence be admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is only one subject of discourse; only one term should therefore be retained, and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be notequivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are terms, and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb.This observation, however, requires some limitation. It occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two names, neither of which singly would express it with sufficient strength. In such cases, the two nounsmaytake a verb singular; and if the noun singular should be in juxta-position with the verb, the singular numbershouldbe used; as “Whyisdust and ashes proud?”—Ecclesiasticus, chap. x.Note3.—In such expressions as the following, it has been doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in the plural number: “Every officer and soldier claim a superiority in regard to other individuals.”—De Lolme on the British Constitution.Here, I conceive, the phraseology is correct. Such an expression as “every officer and soldier claims” might signify one individual under two different designations. Whether we should say, “Every officer, and every soldier, claim,” is a point more particularly questioned. We often hear correct speakers say, in common conversation, “Every clergyman, and every physician, is by education a gentleman;” and there seems to be more ease, as well as more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expression. It is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to analogy to say, “are gentlemen.”Note4.—It is not necessary, that the subjects of discourse be connected, or associated by conjunctions: it is sufficient, if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predicate, whether with or without any connexive word, as “Honour, justice, religion itself, were derided and blasphemed by these profligate wretches.”[121]In this example the copulative is omitted. “The king, with the lords and commons, constitute an excellent form of government.” Here the connexive word is not a conjunction, but a preposition; andthoughthe lords and commonsbe properly in the objective case, andthe kingtherefore the only nominative to the verb, yet as the three subjects collectively constitute the government, the verb without impropriety is put in the plural number. This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with the rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and modern languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable to the syntactical form of expression.Note5.—It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal adjective, compounded withself, is joined to a verb, the simple pronoun, which is the real nominative, is sometimes understood. “If there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:” (Bible:)i.e.“Do thou thyself slay me.”“To know but this, that thou art good,And that myself am blind:”—Pope.that is, “that I myself am blind.”Note6.—Where comparison is expressed or implied, and not combination, the verb should be singular; thus, “Cæsar, as well as Cicero,wasremarkable for eloquence.”“As she laughed out, until her back,As well as sides,waslike to crack.”—Hudibras.Note7.—When the nominatives are of different persons, the first person is preferred to the second, and the second to the third. In other words,I and you,I and he, are sylleptically the same aswe;you and hethe same asye. This observation, however, is scarcely necessary, as the verb plural admits no personal inflexion: it can be useful only in determining what pronoun should be the representative of the terms collectively, as, “he and I shared it betweenus.”Note8.—In the learned languages the pronoun of the first person is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and the second than that of the third; and hence arises the syllepsis of persons which obtains in Greek and Latin. But, though we admit the figure in English, we do not precisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins; for though, like them, we place the pronoun of the second person before that of the third, we modestly place the pronoun of the first person after those of the second and third. Thus, where a Roman wouldsay,Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus, we should say, “If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well.”

Note2.—It was customary with the writers of antiquity, when the substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a verb singular, as,mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est, “understanding, reason, and prudenceisin old men.” In imitation of these, some English authors have, in similar instances, employed a verb singular. I concur, however, with L. Murray in disapproving this phraseology. For either the terms are synonymous, or they are not. If their equivalence be admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is only one subject of discourse; only one term should therefore be retained, and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be notequivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are terms, and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb.

This observation, however, requires some limitation. It occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two names, neither of which singly would express it with sufficient strength. In such cases, the two nounsmaytake a verb singular; and if the noun singular should be in juxta-position with the verb, the singular numbershouldbe used; as “Whyisdust and ashes proud?”—Ecclesiasticus, chap. x.

Note3.—In such expressions as the following, it has been doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in the plural number: “Every officer and soldier claim a superiority in regard to other individuals.”—De Lolme on the British Constitution.Here, I conceive, the phraseology is correct. Such an expression as “every officer and soldier claims” might signify one individual under two different designations. Whether we should say, “Every officer, and every soldier, claim,” is a point more particularly questioned. We often hear correct speakers say, in common conversation, “Every clergyman, and every physician, is by education a gentleman;” and there seems to be more ease, as well as more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expression. It is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to analogy to say, “are gentlemen.”

Note4.—It is not necessary, that the subjects of discourse be connected, or associated by conjunctions: it is sufficient, if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predicate, whether with or without any connexive word, as “Honour, justice, religion itself, were derided and blasphemed by these profligate wretches.”[121]In this example the copulative is omitted. “The king, with the lords and commons, constitute an excellent form of government.” Here the connexive word is not a conjunction, but a preposition; andthoughthe lords and commonsbe properly in the objective case, andthe kingtherefore the only nominative to the verb, yet as the three subjects collectively constitute the government, the verb without impropriety is put in the plural number. This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with the rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and modern languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable to the syntactical form of expression.

Note5.—It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal adjective, compounded withself, is joined to a verb, the simple pronoun, which is the real nominative, is sometimes understood. “If there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:” (Bible:)i.e.“Do thou thyself slay me.”

“To know but this, that thou art good,And that myself am blind:”—Pope.

“To know but this, that thou art good,

And that myself am blind:”—Pope.

that is, “that I myself am blind.”

Note6.—Where comparison is expressed or implied, and not combination, the verb should be singular; thus, “Cæsar, as well as Cicero,wasremarkable for eloquence.”

“As she laughed out, until her back,As well as sides,waslike to crack.”—Hudibras.

“As she laughed out, until her back,

As well as sides,waslike to crack.”—Hudibras.

Note7.—When the nominatives are of different persons, the first person is preferred to the second, and the second to the third. In other words,I and you,I and he, are sylleptically the same aswe;you and hethe same asye. This observation, however, is scarcely necessary, as the verb plural admits no personal inflexion: it can be useful only in determining what pronoun should be the representative of the terms collectively, as, “he and I shared it betweenus.”

Note8.—In the learned languages the pronoun of the first person is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and the second than that of the third; and hence arises the syllepsis of persons which obtains in Greek and Latin. But, though we admit the figure in English, we do not precisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins; for though, like them, we place the pronoun of the second person before that of the third, we modestly place the pronoun of the first person after those of the second and third. Thus, where a Roman wouldsay,Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus, we should say, “If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well.”

Rule III.—When, of two or more substantives singular, one exclusively is the subject of discourse, a verb singular is required, as, “John, James, or Andrew, intends to accompany you;” that is, one of the three, but not more than one.

Note.—When the predicate is to be applied to the different subjects, though they be disjoined by the conjunction, they may be followed by a plural verb. “Neither you, nor I, are in fault.” This is the usual form of expression. If we considerneitherin its proper character, as a pronoun, we should say, “neither you nor I, is in fault:”neitherbeing the nominative to the verb. The former, however, is the common phraseology, and is analogous to the Latin idiom. “Quando nec gnatus, nec hic, mihi quicquam obtemperant.”—Ter. Hec.“Id neque ego, neque tu, fecimus.”—Id.“Num Lælius, aut qui duxit ab oppressa meritum Carthagine nomen, ingenio offensi?”—Hor.

Rule IV.—Nouns of number, or collective nouns, may have a singular or plural verb, thus,

“My peopledonot consider,”“My peopledoesnot consider.”

This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not entirely arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea of number, the verb is preferably made plural; but, if it suggest the idea of a whole or unity, it should be singular. Thus it seems harsh and unnatural to say, “In France the peasantrygoesbarefoot, and the middle sortmakesuse of wooden shoes.” It would be better to say, “the peasantrygo”—“the middle sortmake;” because the idea is that of number. On the contrary, there is something incongruous and unnatural in these expressions: “The court of Romewerenot without solicitude—The house of commonswereof small weight—Stephen’s partywereentirely broken up.”—Hume.

Rule V.—The adjectivesthisandthatagree with their substantives in number, as,

All other adjectives are inflexible, as,

Note1.—This rule is violated in such expressions as these, which too frequently occur, “Thesekind of people.” “Thosesort of goods.”Note2.—The substantive, with which the adjective is connected, is ascertained by putting the question, who, or what? to the adjective, as, “a ripe apple.” What is ripe? Ans. “The apple.”Note3.—The inflexibility of the English adjective sometimes occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of two or more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is sometimes supplied by the note termedhyphen. If, for example, we hear a person designated “an old bookseller,” we may be at a loss to know, whether the person intended be an old man who sells books, that is, “an old book-seller,” or one who sells old books, that is, “an old-book seller.” When we read the notice, “Lime, slate, and coal wharf,” we are indebted to the exercise of common sense, and not to the perspicuity of the diction, for understanding what is meant by attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a different signification.Note4.—Every adjective has a substantive, either expressed or understood, as “the just shall live by faith,”i.e.“the just man;” “few were present,”i.e.“few persons.”Note5.—The adjective is generally placed immediately before the substantive, as, “a learned man,” “a chaste woman.”Exc.1.—When the adjective is closely connected with some other word, by which its meaning is modified or explained, as, “a man loyal to his prince,” where the attributiveloyalis closely connected with the following words.Exc.2.—When the verbto beexpresses simple affirmation, as, “thou art good;” or when any other verb serves asa mere copula to unite the predicate with its subject, as, “he seems courageous,” “it looks strange.”Exc.3.—For the sake of harmony, as, “Hail! bard divine.”Exc.4.—When there are more adjectives than one connected with the substantive, as, “a man wise, valiant, and good.”Exc.5.—Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or of time, are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, “a wall ten feet high,” “a child three years old,” “a speech an hour long.”Note6.—It has been doubted whether the cardinal should precede or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in one of his letters to Pope, “Not but that the four first lines are good.” We conceive the expression to be quite correct, though the other form, namely, “the first four,” be often employed to denote the same conception. There is no contrast intended between these four and any other four, otherwise he should have said, “The first four.” If we say, “the first seven years,” it implies a division into sevens, as takes place, for example, in the terms of a lease; “the seven first years” implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have observed, had only one mode of arrangement. “Itaque quinque primis diebus.”—Cæs.B. C.i. 5. “Tribus primis diebus.”—Ib.i. 18. That the adoption of one and the same collocation, in all cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, is evident. If we take, for example, seven objects, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and say “the first, and the three last,” we clearly refer to A, and E, F, G; but if we say “the first and the last three,” we may indicate A, B, C, the first three, and E, F, G, the last three.Note7.—Eachis employed to denote two things taken separately, and is therefore used as singular[122].Eitheris also singular, and implies only one of two; as,take either, that is “the one or the other, but not both.”Bothis a plural adjective, and denotes the two collectively.Note8.—Everyis an adjective singular, applied to more than two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them all. It is sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the thingsare conceived as forming one aggregate, as,every twelve years,i.e.“every period of twelve years.”Note9.—Allis an adjective either singular or plural, denoting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, “All men are mortal.” “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.”Note10.—Muchis an adjective of quantity, and of the singular number, as, “much fruit.”Manyan adjective of number, and therefore plural, as, “many men.” This word, however, is sometimes construed with a noun singular, as,“Many a poor man’s son would have lain still.”—Shakspeare.Note11.—More, as the comparative ofmuch, is singular, denoting a greater quantity; as the comparative ofmany, it is plural, and signifies a greater number, asmore fruit, or, “a greater quantity;”more men, “or a greater number.”Note12.—Enoughis an adjective singular, and denotes quantity, as, “bread enough:”enowdenotes number, as “books enow.”Note13.—The correlative word to the adjectivesuch, isas, and notwho. There is an impropriety in saying, with Mr. Addison, “Such, who are lovers of mankind,” instead of “Such as,” or, “Those who.”Note14.—The superlative degree is followed byof, and also the comparative, when selection is implied, as, “Hector was the bravest of the Trojans.” “Africanus was the greater of the (two) Scipios.” When opposition is signified, the comparative is followed bythan, as, “Wisdom is better than wealth.”Note15.—There is an ambiguity in the adjectiveno, against which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley seems to think that it is impossible to avoid in any language. Thus, if we say, “No laws are better than the English,” it may mean either, that the absence of all law is better than the English laws, or that no code of jurisprudence is superior to the English. If the latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity is removed by saying, “There are no laws better than the English.” If the former is the sentiment to be expressed, we might say, “The absence of all law is preferable to the English system.”Note16.—Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for adverbs, asindifferent well,extreme bad, forindifferently well,extremely bad. An example of this error is also found in the following sentence. “He was interrogated relative to that circumstance.”Relativeis an adjective, and must have a substantive expressed or understood; the question is then, what, or who was relative? The answer, according to the rules of construction, should behe. This, however, is not the meaning. The word ought to berelatively.I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our grammarians have been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, in condemning such expressions as these,exceeding great,exceeding strong. This phraseology, I apprehend, has been reprobated, partly because not conformable to the Latin idiom, and partly because such expressions as these,excessive good,extreme dear,excellent well, are justly repudiated. Neither of these, however, can be deemed a sufficient reason for condemning this phraseology. For when it is said, “His strength was exceeding great,” may not the expression be considered as elliptical, the wordexceedingbeing construed as a participle, thus, “his strength was exceeding,” or “surpassing great strength,” that is, “his strength exceeded great strength.”[123]So Shakspeare says, “it was passing strange.” Thoughexceedingly strong,exceedingly good, are now considered to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be nodoubt, as Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes used to modify the sense of other adjectives; thus we say, “red hot,” “a closer grained wood,” “a sharper edged sword.”In connection with the preceding note, we would here observe, that adjectives are used to modify the meaning of the verbs to which they refer; thus we say, “Open thy hand wide.”—Bible.“Cry shrill with thy voice.”—Ib.“He fought hard for his life.” The use of the kindred adverbs, as will be afterwards shown, would in many instances materially alter the meaning.

Note1.—This rule is violated in such expressions as these, which too frequently occur, “Thesekind of people.” “Thosesort of goods.”

Note2.—The substantive, with which the adjective is connected, is ascertained by putting the question, who, or what? to the adjective, as, “a ripe apple.” What is ripe? Ans. “The apple.”

Note3.—The inflexibility of the English adjective sometimes occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of two or more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is sometimes supplied by the note termedhyphen. If, for example, we hear a person designated “an old bookseller,” we may be at a loss to know, whether the person intended be an old man who sells books, that is, “an old book-seller,” or one who sells old books, that is, “an old-book seller.” When we read the notice, “Lime, slate, and coal wharf,” we are indebted to the exercise of common sense, and not to the perspicuity of the diction, for understanding what is meant by attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a different signification.

Note4.—Every adjective has a substantive, either expressed or understood, as “the just shall live by faith,”i.e.“the just man;” “few were present,”i.e.“few persons.”

Note5.—The adjective is generally placed immediately before the substantive, as, “a learned man,” “a chaste woman.”

Exc.1.—When the adjective is closely connected with some other word, by which its meaning is modified or explained, as, “a man loyal to his prince,” where the attributiveloyalis closely connected with the following words.

Exc.2.—When the verbto beexpresses simple affirmation, as, “thou art good;” or when any other verb serves asa mere copula to unite the predicate with its subject, as, “he seems courageous,” “it looks strange.”

Exc.3.—For the sake of harmony, as, “Hail! bard divine.”

Exc.4.—When there are more adjectives than one connected with the substantive, as, “a man wise, valiant, and good.”

Exc.5.—Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or of time, are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, “a wall ten feet high,” “a child three years old,” “a speech an hour long.”

Note6.—It has been doubted whether the cardinal should precede or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in one of his letters to Pope, “Not but that the four first lines are good.” We conceive the expression to be quite correct, though the other form, namely, “the first four,” be often employed to denote the same conception. There is no contrast intended between these four and any other four, otherwise he should have said, “The first four.” If we say, “the first seven years,” it implies a division into sevens, as takes place, for example, in the terms of a lease; “the seven first years” implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have observed, had only one mode of arrangement. “Itaque quinque primis diebus.”—Cæs.B. C.i. 5. “Tribus primis diebus.”—Ib.i. 18. That the adoption of one and the same collocation, in all cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, is evident. If we take, for example, seven objects, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and say “the first, and the three last,” we clearly refer to A, and E, F, G; but if we say “the first and the last three,” we may indicate A, B, C, the first three, and E, F, G, the last three.

Note7.—Eachis employed to denote two things taken separately, and is therefore used as singular[122].Eitheris also singular, and implies only one of two; as,take either, that is “the one or the other, but not both.”Bothis a plural adjective, and denotes the two collectively.

Note8.—Everyis an adjective singular, applied to more than two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them all. It is sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the thingsare conceived as forming one aggregate, as,every twelve years,i.e.“every period of twelve years.”

Note9.—Allis an adjective either singular or plural, denoting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, “All men are mortal.” “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.”

Note10.—Muchis an adjective of quantity, and of the singular number, as, “much fruit.”Manyan adjective of number, and therefore plural, as, “many men.” This word, however, is sometimes construed with a noun singular, as,

“Many a poor man’s son would have lain still.”—Shakspeare.

Note11.—More, as the comparative ofmuch, is singular, denoting a greater quantity; as the comparative ofmany, it is plural, and signifies a greater number, asmore fruit, or, “a greater quantity;”more men, “or a greater number.”

Note12.—Enoughis an adjective singular, and denotes quantity, as, “bread enough:”enowdenotes number, as “books enow.”

Note13.—The correlative word to the adjectivesuch, isas, and notwho. There is an impropriety in saying, with Mr. Addison, “Such, who are lovers of mankind,” instead of “Such as,” or, “Those who.”

Note14.—The superlative degree is followed byof, and also the comparative, when selection is implied, as, “Hector was the bravest of the Trojans.” “Africanus was the greater of the (two) Scipios.” When opposition is signified, the comparative is followed bythan, as, “Wisdom is better than wealth.”

Note15.—There is an ambiguity in the adjectiveno, against which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley seems to think that it is impossible to avoid in any language. Thus, if we say, “No laws are better than the English,” it may mean either, that the absence of all law is better than the English laws, or that no code of jurisprudence is superior to the English. If the latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity is removed by saying, “There are no laws better than the English.” If the former is the sentiment to be expressed, we might say, “The absence of all law is preferable to the English system.”

Note16.—Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for adverbs, asindifferent well,extreme bad, forindifferently well,extremely bad. An example of this error is also found in the following sentence. “He was interrogated relative to that circumstance.”Relativeis an adjective, and must have a substantive expressed or understood; the question is then, what, or who was relative? The answer, according to the rules of construction, should behe. This, however, is not the meaning. The word ought to berelatively.

I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our grammarians have been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, in condemning such expressions as these,exceeding great,exceeding strong. This phraseology, I apprehend, has been reprobated, partly because not conformable to the Latin idiom, and partly because such expressions as these,excessive good,extreme dear,excellent well, are justly repudiated. Neither of these, however, can be deemed a sufficient reason for condemning this phraseology. For when it is said, “His strength was exceeding great,” may not the expression be considered as elliptical, the wordexceedingbeing construed as a participle, thus, “his strength was exceeding,” or “surpassing great strength,” that is, “his strength exceeded great strength.”[123]So Shakspeare says, “it was passing strange.” Thoughexceedingly strong,exceedingly good, are now considered to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be nodoubt, as Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes used to modify the sense of other adjectives; thus we say, “red hot,” “a closer grained wood,” “a sharper edged sword.”

In connection with the preceding note, we would here observe, that adjectives are used to modify the meaning of the verbs to which they refer; thus we say, “Open thy hand wide.”—Bible.“Cry shrill with thy voice.”—Ib.“He fought hard for his life.” The use of the kindred adverbs, as will be afterwards shown, would in many instances materially alter the meaning.

Rule VI.—The articleaoranis joined to nouns of the singular number only, or nouns denoting a plurality of things in one aggregate, as,

Note1.—To distinguish between the use ofaandan, it is usually given as a general rule thatabe placed before consonants andhaspirated, andanbefore vowels andhnot aspirated, asa table,a hat,an oak,an heir. In respect toabeforehaspirated, it must be observed, that usage is divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was translated, and the Liturgy composed,anwas almost universally used beforeh, whether the aspirate belonged to an emphatic or an unemphatic syllable. A change has since taken place; and some give it as a rule, to putabeforeh, when the syllable is emphatic, andanwhen the syllable has not the emphasis. This rule, however, is not universally observed; some writing “a history,” others “an history;” some writing “a hypothesis,” others “an hypothesis.” As far as easy pronunciation is concerned, or the practice of Greek and Roman writers may furnish a precedent, there seems to be no solid objection to either of these modes. The former is more common in Scotch and Irish writers than it is in English authors, with whom the aspiration is less forcible, and less common.Anis used before a vowel; but from this rule two deviations are admitted. Before the simple sound ofu, followed by another vowel sound, whether signified or not,aand notanis used. Thus we say, “suchaone,” “such a woman.” If the sound of “one” be analyzed, we shall find it resolvable intooo-unorwon, as some orthoepists have expressed it; andwomanintooo-umman. Again, before the diphthongal sound ofeu, in whatsoever manner that sound may be noted,amay be, and frequently is, used. Thus we say, “a youth,” “a yeoman,” “a eunuch,” “a unicorn.” Sheridan, indeed, contends, that all words beginning withu, when it has the diphthongal sound ofeu, should be preceded byaand notan. And here I must remark, that it is with no common surprise, I find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, denying that the voweluis anywhere equivalent toeuore-oo. Who those public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in England, and to whose authority he appeals, we are utterly at a loss to conjecture. But this we confidently affirm, that there is no orthoepist, no public orator, nay, not an individual in any rank of society, who does not distinguish between the sound ofuinbrute,rude,intrude, and incube,fume,cure. His reference to Johnson, who says thatuis long inconfusion, and short indiscussion, is irrelevant and nugatory. Dr. Webster surely has not to learn, that the vowel may be long, whether the sound be monophthongal, or diphthongal. It is strange, too, that in the very example which he quotes from Johnson, theuhas the diphthongal sound, which he, notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing.Note2.—Ais employed to express one individual of a species without determining who or which;thedenotes some particular individual or individuals; thus, “a book” means any book, “the book” some particular book; and when both articles are omitted the whole class is signified, as, “Man is born unto trouble,”i.e.“all men.” Hobbes errs against this rule when he says, “God Almighty has given reason toaman, to be a light to him.” The article should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error when he writes,“Who breaks a butterfly uponawheel.”It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known instrument of torture, or “the wheel.”The articleaserves to distinguish between two subjectscompared with each other, and two subjects compared with a third. “He is the author of two works of a different character.” If the writer meant to say that he was the author of two works of a different character from that of one previously mentioned, the expression would be correct. But he intended to signify a dissimilarity between the two productions. He should, therefore, have omitted the article, and said, “of different character,” or “of different characters.”Note3.—The indefinite article, though generally placed before the adjective, as, “a good man,” is put after the adjectivesuch; and where these words of comparison occur,as,so,too,how, its place is between the adjective and substantive, thus, “Such a gift is too small a reward for so great a service.” When the order is inverted, this rule is not observed, as “a reward so small,” “a service so great.” The definite article is likewise placed before the adjective, as “the great king.”Allis the only adjective which precedes the article. “All the servants,” “all the money.”Note4.—Pronouns and proper names do not admit the definite article, themselves sufficiently determining the subject of discourse; thus we cannot say,the I,the Alexander. If we employ the definite article with a proper name, an ellipsis is involved; thus, if I say,he commands the Cæsar, I mean, he commands the ship called “Cæsar.”Note5.—The definite article is used to distinguish the explicative from the determinative sense. The omission of the article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For this reason the following sentence is faulty: “All words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”—Bolingbroke.Here the clause, “which are signs of complex ideas,” is not explicative, but restrictive; for all words are not signs of complex ideas. It should, therefore, be “all the,” or “all those words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”“In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights, which for many years have been relinquished.”—Erskine on the Rights of Juries.This sentence is chargeable at once with ambiguity and error. In the first place, it is doubtful whether a regard to this analogy governs the directions of the judge, or is to rule the decision of the jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the definite article, or the wordthosebefore the antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause explicative, instead of being restrictive; for, as all incorporeal rights are not abolished, he should have said, “against those incorporeal rights.”There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent clause admits the definite article, though the relative clause be not restrictive, thus,“Blest are the pure, whose hearts are cleanFrom the defiling power of sin.”Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the antecedent admits the article. Thus also, in the following sentence, “My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, and the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” The relative clause is not intended to limit the meaning of the antecedent terms, and yet they admit the definite article. In all examples, therefore, like these, where the explanatory meaning admits the article, it is necessary, for the sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative sense by the emphatic wordsthatorthose. Thus, had the clause been determinative in the latter of these examples, it would have been necessary to say, “those saints, and those excellent ones, in whom is my delight.”Note6.—The definite article is likewise used to distinguish between things which are individually different, but have one generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and the same, but are characterized by several qualities. For example, if I should say, “the red and blue vestments were most admired,” it may be doubtful whether I mean that the union of red and blue in the same vestments was most admired, or that the red and the blue vestments were both more admired than the rest. In strictness of speech, the former is the only proper meaning of the words, though the latter sentiment be often thus expressed. If the latter be intended, we should say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,” where the article is repeated.If I say, “the red and blue vestments,” it is obvious that only one subject is expressed, namely, “vestments,” characterized by two qualities, “redness,” and “blueness,” as combined in the subject. Here the subject is one; its qualities are plural. If I say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,” the subjects are plural, expressed, however, by one generic name,vestments.In the same manner, if we say, “the ecclesiastical and secular powers concurred in this measure,” the expression is ambiguous, as far as language can render it such. The reader’s knowledge, as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent his mistaking it; but, if such modes of expression be admitted, where the sense is clear, they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, where the meaning would be obscure, if not entirely misunderstood. The error might have been avoided, either by repeating the substantive, or by subjoining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the substantives after both adjectives, the article being prefixed in the same manner; thus, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers,” or better, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular,” or “the ecclesiastical, and the secular powers.” The repetition of the article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally different, though expressed by the same generic name. “The lords spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable on the same principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we dare hardly question its propriety. The subjects are different, though they have but one generic name. It should therefore be, “the spiritual and the temporal lords.”On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as epithets to one and the same thing, the other arrangement is to be preferred. Thus, “the high and mighty states.” Here both epithets belong to one subject. “The states high and mighty,” would convey the same idea.Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same thing, or to different things having the same generic name.“Like an householder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new and old.” This arrangement is faulty; both epithets cannot belong to the same subject. It should be, “new things and old.”If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to follow both, the article being uniformly omitted before the second adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before the first, or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to different subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought to follow the first adjective, and may be either repeated after the second, or understood; or it should follow both adjectives, the article being prefixed to each of them.Note7.—The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus,“Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud.”—Thomson.Herelittleis equivalent to “not much,” or rather by a common trope it denotesnot at all. Locke says, “I leave him to reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found in him by any one, who reads with but a little attention.” Here, on the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, “a little” means “not none,” or “some.”In like manner, when it is said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it;”fewis opposed tomany. Thus also, “Manyare called, butfeware chosen.” But when it is said, “Tarry a few days, till thy brother’s fury turn;”a fewis here equivalent tosome, not as opposed tomany, but as opposed tonot none. If we say, “fewaccompanied the prince,” we seem to diminish the number, and represent it as inconsiderable, as if we said, “not many,” or “fewer than expectation:” if we say,a few, we seem to amplify;—we represent the number as not unworthy of attention, or as equal, at least, if not superior to expectation. In short, if the article be inserted, the clause is equivalent to a double negative, and thus it serves to amplify; if the article be suppressed, the expression has either a diminutive or a negative import.Note8.—The indefinite article has, sometimes, the meaningofeveryoreach; thus, “they cost five shillings a dozen,” that is, “every dozen.”“What makes all doctrines plain and clear?About two hundred pounds a year.”—Hudibras.That is, “every year.”Note9.—There is a particular use of this article, which merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be avoided. In denoting comparison, when the article is suppressed before the second term, the latter, though it may be an appellative, assumes the character of an attributive, and becomes the predicate of the subject, or first term. If, on the contrary, the second term be prefaced with the article, it continues an appellative, and forms the other subject of comparison. In the former case, the subject, as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is compared with itself; in the latter, it is compared with something else.Thus, if we say, “he is a better soldier than scholar,” the article is suppressed before the second term, and the expression is equivalent to, “he is more warlike than learned,” or “he possesses the qualities, which form the soldier, in a greater degree than those, which constitute the scholar.” If, we say, “he would make a better soldier, thanascholar,” here the article is prefixed to the second term; this term, therefore, retains the character of an appellative, and forms the second subject of comparison. The meaning accordingly is, “he would make a better soldier, than a scholar would make;” that is, “he has more of the constituent qualities of a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man.”Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to Atterbury, he says, “You thought me not a worse man than a poet.” This strictly means “a worse man than a poet is;” whereas he intended to say, that his moral qualities were not inferior to his poetical genius. He should have said, “a worse man than poet.”These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which seldom fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously considers them as equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article is omitted before the second substantive. When there are two subjects with one predicate, the article should be inserted;but when there is one subject with two predicates, it should be omitted.Note10.—Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when an additional epithet or description of the same subject is intended, the definite article should not be employed. It is by an attention to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between subject and predicate. For this reason the following sentence appears to me faulty: “The apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and the brother of St. John, would be declared the apostle of the Britons.”—Henry’s History of Britain.It should be rather, “and brother of St. John.” When a diversity of persons, or a change of subject is intended to be expressed, the definite article is necessarily employed, as “Cincinnatus the dictator, and the master of horse, marched against the Æqui.” The definite article before the latter appellative marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that two persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, were one and the same individual.

Anis used before a vowel; but from this rule two deviations are admitted. Before the simple sound ofu, followed by another vowel sound, whether signified or not,aand notanis used. Thus we say, “suchaone,” “such a woman.” If the sound of “one” be analyzed, we shall find it resolvable intooo-unorwon, as some orthoepists have expressed it; andwomanintooo-umman. Again, before the diphthongal sound ofeu, in whatsoever manner that sound may be noted,amay be, and frequently is, used. Thus we say, “a youth,” “a yeoman,” “a eunuch,” “a unicorn.” Sheridan, indeed, contends, that all words beginning withu, when it has the diphthongal sound ofeu, should be preceded byaand notan. And here I must remark, that it is with no common surprise, I find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, denying that the voweluis anywhere equivalent toeuore-oo. Who those public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in England, and to whose authority he appeals, we are utterly at a loss to conjecture. But this we confidently affirm, that there is no orthoepist, no public orator, nay, not an individual in any rank of society, who does not distinguish between the sound ofuinbrute,rude,intrude, and incube,fume,cure. His reference to Johnson, who says thatuis long inconfusion, and short indiscussion, is irrelevant and nugatory. Dr. Webster surely has not to learn, that the vowel may be long, whether the sound be monophthongal, or diphthongal. It is strange, too, that in the very example which he quotes from Johnson, theuhas the diphthongal sound, which he, notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing.

Note2.—Ais employed to express one individual of a species without determining who or which;thedenotes some particular individual or individuals; thus, “a book” means any book, “the book” some particular book; and when both articles are omitted the whole class is signified, as, “Man is born unto trouble,”i.e.“all men.” Hobbes errs against this rule when he says, “God Almighty has given reason toaman, to be a light to him.” The article should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error when he writes,

“Who breaks a butterfly uponawheel.”

It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known instrument of torture, or “the wheel.”

The articleaserves to distinguish between two subjectscompared with each other, and two subjects compared with a third. “He is the author of two works of a different character.” If the writer meant to say that he was the author of two works of a different character from that of one previously mentioned, the expression would be correct. But he intended to signify a dissimilarity between the two productions. He should, therefore, have omitted the article, and said, “of different character,” or “of different characters.”

Note3.—The indefinite article, though generally placed before the adjective, as, “a good man,” is put after the adjectivesuch; and where these words of comparison occur,as,so,too,how, its place is between the adjective and substantive, thus, “Such a gift is too small a reward for so great a service.” When the order is inverted, this rule is not observed, as “a reward so small,” “a service so great.” The definite article is likewise placed before the adjective, as “the great king.”Allis the only adjective which precedes the article. “All the servants,” “all the money.”

Note4.—Pronouns and proper names do not admit the definite article, themselves sufficiently determining the subject of discourse; thus we cannot say,the I,the Alexander. If we employ the definite article with a proper name, an ellipsis is involved; thus, if I say,he commands the Cæsar, I mean, he commands the ship called “Cæsar.”

Note5.—The definite article is used to distinguish the explicative from the determinative sense. The omission of the article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For this reason the following sentence is faulty: “All words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”—Bolingbroke.Here the clause, “which are signs of complex ideas,” is not explicative, but restrictive; for all words are not signs of complex ideas. It should, therefore, be “all the,” or “all those words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”

“In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights, which for many years have been relinquished.”—Erskine on the Rights of Juries.This sentence is chargeable at once with ambiguity and error. In the first place, it is doubtful whether a regard to this analogy governs the directions of the judge, or is to rule the decision of the jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the definite article, or the wordthosebefore the antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause explicative, instead of being restrictive; for, as all incorporeal rights are not abolished, he should have said, “against those incorporeal rights.”

There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent clause admits the definite article, though the relative clause be not restrictive, thus,

“Blest are the pure, whose hearts are cleanFrom the defiling power of sin.”

“Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean

From the defiling power of sin.”

Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the antecedent admits the article. Thus also, in the following sentence, “My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, and the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” The relative clause is not intended to limit the meaning of the antecedent terms, and yet they admit the definite article. In all examples, therefore, like these, where the explanatory meaning admits the article, it is necessary, for the sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative sense by the emphatic wordsthatorthose. Thus, had the clause been determinative in the latter of these examples, it would have been necessary to say, “those saints, and those excellent ones, in whom is my delight.”

Note6.—The definite article is likewise used to distinguish between things which are individually different, but have one generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and the same, but are characterized by several qualities. For example, if I should say, “the red and blue vestments were most admired,” it may be doubtful whether I mean that the union of red and blue in the same vestments was most admired, or that the red and the blue vestments were both more admired than the rest. In strictness of speech, the former is the only proper meaning of the words, though the latter sentiment be often thus expressed. If the latter be intended, we should say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,” where the article is repeated.If I say, “the red and blue vestments,” it is obvious that only one subject is expressed, namely, “vestments,” characterized by two qualities, “redness,” and “blueness,” as combined in the subject. Here the subject is one; its qualities are plural. If I say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,” the subjects are plural, expressed, however, by one generic name,vestments.

In the same manner, if we say, “the ecclesiastical and secular powers concurred in this measure,” the expression is ambiguous, as far as language can render it such. The reader’s knowledge, as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent his mistaking it; but, if such modes of expression be admitted, where the sense is clear, they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, where the meaning would be obscure, if not entirely misunderstood. The error might have been avoided, either by repeating the substantive, or by subjoining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the substantives after both adjectives, the article being prefixed in the same manner; thus, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers,” or better, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular,” or “the ecclesiastical, and the secular powers.” The repetition of the article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally different, though expressed by the same generic name. “The lords spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable on the same principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we dare hardly question its propriety. The subjects are different, though they have but one generic name. It should therefore be, “the spiritual and the temporal lords.”

On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as epithets to one and the same thing, the other arrangement is to be preferred. Thus, “the high and mighty states.” Here both epithets belong to one subject. “The states high and mighty,” would convey the same idea.

Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same thing, or to different things having the same generic name.“Like an householder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new and old.” This arrangement is faulty; both epithets cannot belong to the same subject. It should be, “new things and old.”

If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to follow both, the article being uniformly omitted before the second adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before the first, or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to different subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought to follow the first adjective, and may be either repeated after the second, or understood; or it should follow both adjectives, the article being prefixed to each of them.

Note7.—The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus,

“Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud.”—Thomson.

Herelittleis equivalent to “not much,” or rather by a common trope it denotesnot at all. Locke says, “I leave him to reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found in him by any one, who reads with but a little attention.” Here, on the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, “a little” means “not none,” or “some.”

In like manner, when it is said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it;”fewis opposed tomany. Thus also, “Manyare called, butfeware chosen.” But when it is said, “Tarry a few days, till thy brother’s fury turn;”a fewis here equivalent tosome, not as opposed tomany, but as opposed tonot none. If we say, “fewaccompanied the prince,” we seem to diminish the number, and represent it as inconsiderable, as if we said, “not many,” or “fewer than expectation:” if we say,a few, we seem to amplify;—we represent the number as not unworthy of attention, or as equal, at least, if not superior to expectation. In short, if the article be inserted, the clause is equivalent to a double negative, and thus it serves to amplify; if the article be suppressed, the expression has either a diminutive or a negative import.

Note8.—The indefinite article has, sometimes, the meaningofeveryoreach; thus, “they cost five shillings a dozen,” that is, “every dozen.”

“What makes all doctrines plain and clear?About two hundred pounds a year.”—Hudibras.

“What makes all doctrines plain and clear?

About two hundred pounds a year.”—Hudibras.

That is, “every year.”

Note9.—There is a particular use of this article, which merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be avoided. In denoting comparison, when the article is suppressed before the second term, the latter, though it may be an appellative, assumes the character of an attributive, and becomes the predicate of the subject, or first term. If, on the contrary, the second term be prefaced with the article, it continues an appellative, and forms the other subject of comparison. In the former case, the subject, as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is compared with itself; in the latter, it is compared with something else.

Thus, if we say, “he is a better soldier than scholar,” the article is suppressed before the second term, and the expression is equivalent to, “he is more warlike than learned,” or “he possesses the qualities, which form the soldier, in a greater degree than those, which constitute the scholar.” If, we say, “he would make a better soldier, thanascholar,” here the article is prefixed to the second term; this term, therefore, retains the character of an appellative, and forms the second subject of comparison. The meaning accordingly is, “he would make a better soldier, than a scholar would make;” that is, “he has more of the constituent qualities of a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man.”

Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to Atterbury, he says, “You thought me not a worse man than a poet.” This strictly means “a worse man than a poet is;” whereas he intended to say, that his moral qualities were not inferior to his poetical genius. He should have said, “a worse man than poet.”

These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which seldom fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously considers them as equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article is omitted before the second substantive. When there are two subjects with one predicate, the article should be inserted;but when there is one subject with two predicates, it should be omitted.

Note10.—Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when an additional epithet or description of the same subject is intended, the definite article should not be employed. It is by an attention to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between subject and predicate. For this reason the following sentence appears to me faulty: “The apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and the brother of St. John, would be declared the apostle of the Britons.”—Henry’s History of Britain.It should be rather, “and brother of St. John.” When a diversity of persons, or a change of subject is intended to be expressed, the definite article is necessarily employed, as “Cincinnatus the dictator, and the master of horse, marched against the Æqui.” The definite article before the latter appellative marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that two persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, were one and the same individual.

Rule VII.—Substantives signifying the same thing agree in case, thus, “I, George the Third, king of Great Britain, defender of the faith.” The wordsI,George,king,defender, are all considered as the nominative case. “The chief of the princes,hewho defied the bravest of the enemy, was assassinated by a dastardly villain:” where the pronounheagrees in case with the preceding termchief. This rule, however, may be deemed unnecessary, as all such expressions are elliptical; thus, “the chief of the princes was assassinated,” “he was assassinated.” “He was the son of the Rev. Dr. West, perhapshimwho published Pindar at Oxford.”—Johnson’s Life of West.That is, “the son of him.” Were the pronoun in the nominative case, it would refer to the son, and not the father, and thus convey a very different meaning.

Note1.—As proper names are, by the trope antonomasia, frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, “the Socrates of the present age,” whereSocratesis equivalent to “the wisest man,” so also appellatives have frequently the meaning and force of attributives. Thus, if we say, “he is a soldier,” it means either that he is by profession a soldier, or that he possesses all the qualities of a military man, whether professionally a soldier or not. According to the former acceptation of the term, it is a mere appellative; agreeably to the latter, it has the force of an attributive.Note2.—Two or more substantives in concordance, and forming one complex name, or a name and title, have the plural termination annexed to the last only, as, “the two Miss Louisa Howards,the two Miss Thomsons.” Analogy, Dr. Priestley observes, would plead in favour of another construction, and lead us to say,the two Misses Thomson,the two Misses Louisa Howard; for if the ellipsis were supplied, we should say, “the two young ladies of the name of Thomson,” and this construction he adds, he has somewhere met with.The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally occurs; but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, analogy likewise, decide in favour of the former; for, with a few exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now given[124], we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflexion to the last substantive. Some proofs of this we shall afterwards have an opportunity of offering. I would also observe, in passing, that ellipsis and analogy are different principles, and should be carefully distinguished.

Note2.—Two or more substantives in concordance, and forming one complex name, or a name and title, have the plural termination annexed to the last only, as, “the two Miss Louisa Howards,the two Miss Thomsons.” Analogy, Dr. Priestley observes, would plead in favour of another construction, and lead us to say,the two Misses Thomson,the two Misses Louisa Howard; for if the ellipsis were supplied, we should say, “the two young ladies of the name of Thomson,” and this construction he adds, he has somewhere met with.

The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally occurs; but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, analogy likewise, decide in favour of the former; for, with a few exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now given[124], we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflexion to the last substantive. Some proofs of this we shall afterwards have an opportunity of offering. I would also observe, in passing, that ellipsis and analogy are different principles, and should be carefully distinguished.

Rule VIII.—One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the genitive, as,

Note1.—This rule takes place when property, possession, or the general relation, by which one thing appertains to another, is implied.Note2.—It may be considered as violated in such examples as these, “Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime.”—Addison.“Christ his sake.”—Common Prayer.Note3.—Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise pronouns, as, “its strength,” “his reward.”Note4.—This case is generally resolvable into the objective with the prepositionof, as, “the king’s sceptre,” or “the sceptre of the king;” “his head,” or “the head of him.” I have saidgenerally, for it is notalwaysthus resolvable. For example, the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, “the Lord’s day;” but “the day of the Lord” conveys a different idea, and denotes “the day of judgment.”Note5.—The latter or governing substantive is frequently understood, as, “the king will come to St. James’s to-morrow,” that is, “St. James’s palace.” “I found him at the stationer’s,” that is, “the stationer’s shop,” or “the stationer’s house.”Note6.—When a single subject is expressed as the common property of two or more persons, the last only takes the sign of the genitive, as, “this is John, William, and Richard’s house;” that is, “this is the house of John, William, and Richard.” But when several subjects are implied, as severally belonging to various individuals, the names of the individuals are all expressed in the genitive case, as “these are John’s, William’s, and Richard’s houses.” In such examples as these, the use of the genitive involves an ambiguity, which it is sometimes difficult to prevent. Thus, if we say, agreeably to the first observation in this note, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s posterity were carried captive to Babylon,” one unacquainted with the history of these patriarchs, might be at a loss to determine whether “the patriarch Abraham,” “the patriarch Isaac,” and “the posterity of Jacob,” were carried captive; in other words, whether there be three subjects of discourse, namely,Abraham,Isaac, andthe posterity of Jacob, or only one subject,the posterity of the patriarchs. Nor will the insertion of the preposition in all cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example before us, were the word “descendants” substituted for “posterity,” and the phrase to proceed thus, “the descendants of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” an ignorant reader might be led to suppose that not one generation of descendants, but three distinct generations of these three individualswere carried into captivity. If we say, “the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the expression appears to me liable to the same misconstruction with the one first mentioned. If we say, “the common posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were carried captive to Babylon,” all ambiguity of expression is prevented.Instead also of saying, “John, William, and Richard’s house,” I should prefer “a house belonging in common to John, William, and Richard.” This expression, though laborious and heavy, is preferable to the inelegance and harshness of three inflected substantives, while it removes the ambiguity, which might in some cases be occasioned by withholding the inflexion from the two first substantives. Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be combined, it will not be questioned which we ought to prefer. I observe, also, that though such phraseologies as this, “John’s, William’s, and Richard’s houses,” be perfectly consonant with syntactical propriety, and strictly analogous to the established phraseology, “his, Richard’s, and my houses,” yet, as there appears something uncouth in the former expression, it would be better to say, “the houses belonging in common, or severally (as the meaning may be) to John, William, and Richard.”Note7.—When a name is complex, that is, consisting of more terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the genitive, as, “Julius Cæsar’s Commentaries,” “John the Baptist’s head,” “for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.”Note8.—When a short explanatory term is subjoined to a name, it matters little to which the inflexion be annexed, as, “I left the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the bookseller’s,” or “at Mr. Johnson’s, the bookseller.” But if the explanatory term be complex, or if there are more explanatory terms than one, the sign of the genitive must be affixed to the name, or first substantive, thus, “I left the book at Johnson’s, a respectable bookseller, a worthy man, and an old friend.” In the same manner we should say, “this psalm is David’s, the king, priest, and prophet of the people,” and not “this psalm is David, the king, priest, and prophet of the people’s.”Note9.—In some cases we employ both the genitive and a preposition, as “this is a friend of the king’s,” elliptically, for “this is a friend of the king’s friends.” We say also, “this is a friend of the king.” These forms of expression, however, though in many cases equivalent, sometimes imply different ideas. Thus, if I say, “this is a picture of my friend,” it means, “this is an image, likeness, or representation of my friend.” If I say, “This is a picture of my friend’s,” it means, “this picture belongs to my friend.”As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies part of a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think the use of it should be avoided, unless in cases where this plurality may be implied. Thus we may say, “a kinsman of the traitor’s waited on him yesterday,” it being implied that the traitor had several or many kinsmen. The expression is equivalent to “a kinsman of the traitor’s kinsmen.” But, if the subject possessed were singular, or the only one of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple genitive; thus, if he had only one house, I should say, “this is the house of the traitor,” or “this is the traitor’s house;” but not “this is a house of the traitor’s.”Note10.—The recurrence of the analytical expression, and likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully avoided. Thus, there is something inelegant and offensive in the following sentence, “the severity of the distress of the son of the king touched the nation.” Much better, “the severe distress of the king’s son touched the nation.”Note11.—There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or uncouthness, in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in “the army’s name,” “the commons’ vote,” “the lords’ house,” expressions of Mr. Hume, there is a manifest want of dignity and of elegance. Much better, “the name of the army,” “the vote of the commons,” “the house of lords.”

Note1.—This rule takes place when property, possession, or the general relation, by which one thing appertains to another, is implied.

Note2.—It may be considered as violated in such examples as these, “Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime.”—Addison.“Christ his sake.”—Common Prayer.

Note3.—Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise pronouns, as, “its strength,” “his reward.”

Note4.—This case is generally resolvable into the objective with the prepositionof, as, “the king’s sceptre,” or “the sceptre of the king;” “his head,” or “the head of him.” I have saidgenerally, for it is notalwaysthus resolvable. For example, the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, “the Lord’s day;” but “the day of the Lord” conveys a different idea, and denotes “the day of judgment.”

Note5.—The latter or governing substantive is frequently understood, as, “the king will come to St. James’s to-morrow,” that is, “St. James’s palace.” “I found him at the stationer’s,” that is, “the stationer’s shop,” or “the stationer’s house.”

Note6.—When a single subject is expressed as the common property of two or more persons, the last only takes the sign of the genitive, as, “this is John, William, and Richard’s house;” that is, “this is the house of John, William, and Richard.” But when several subjects are implied, as severally belonging to various individuals, the names of the individuals are all expressed in the genitive case, as “these are John’s, William’s, and Richard’s houses.” In such examples as these, the use of the genitive involves an ambiguity, which it is sometimes difficult to prevent. Thus, if we say, agreeably to the first observation in this note, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s posterity were carried captive to Babylon,” one unacquainted with the history of these patriarchs, might be at a loss to determine whether “the patriarch Abraham,” “the patriarch Isaac,” and “the posterity of Jacob,” were carried captive; in other words, whether there be three subjects of discourse, namely,Abraham,Isaac, andthe posterity of Jacob, or only one subject,the posterity of the patriarchs. Nor will the insertion of the preposition in all cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example before us, were the word “descendants” substituted for “posterity,” and the phrase to proceed thus, “the descendants of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” an ignorant reader might be led to suppose that not one generation of descendants, but three distinct generations of these three individualswere carried into captivity. If we say, “the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the expression appears to me liable to the same misconstruction with the one first mentioned. If we say, “the common posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were carried captive to Babylon,” all ambiguity of expression is prevented.

Instead also of saying, “John, William, and Richard’s house,” I should prefer “a house belonging in common to John, William, and Richard.” This expression, though laborious and heavy, is preferable to the inelegance and harshness of three inflected substantives, while it removes the ambiguity, which might in some cases be occasioned by withholding the inflexion from the two first substantives. Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be combined, it will not be questioned which we ought to prefer. I observe, also, that though such phraseologies as this, “John’s, William’s, and Richard’s houses,” be perfectly consonant with syntactical propriety, and strictly analogous to the established phraseology, “his, Richard’s, and my houses,” yet, as there appears something uncouth in the former expression, it would be better to say, “the houses belonging in common, or severally (as the meaning may be) to John, William, and Richard.”

Note7.—When a name is complex, that is, consisting of more terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the genitive, as, “Julius Cæsar’s Commentaries,” “John the Baptist’s head,” “for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.”

Note8.—When a short explanatory term is subjoined to a name, it matters little to which the inflexion be annexed, as, “I left the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the bookseller’s,” or “at Mr. Johnson’s, the bookseller.” But if the explanatory term be complex, or if there are more explanatory terms than one, the sign of the genitive must be affixed to the name, or first substantive, thus, “I left the book at Johnson’s, a respectable bookseller, a worthy man, and an old friend.” In the same manner we should say, “this psalm is David’s, the king, priest, and prophet of the people,” and not “this psalm is David, the king, priest, and prophet of the people’s.”

Note9.—In some cases we employ both the genitive and a preposition, as “this is a friend of the king’s,” elliptically, for “this is a friend of the king’s friends.” We say also, “this is a friend of the king.” These forms of expression, however, though in many cases equivalent, sometimes imply different ideas. Thus, if I say, “this is a picture of my friend,” it means, “this is an image, likeness, or representation of my friend.” If I say, “This is a picture of my friend’s,” it means, “this picture belongs to my friend.”

As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies part of a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think the use of it should be avoided, unless in cases where this plurality may be implied. Thus we may say, “a kinsman of the traitor’s waited on him yesterday,” it being implied that the traitor had several or many kinsmen. The expression is equivalent to “a kinsman of the traitor’s kinsmen.” But, if the subject possessed were singular, or the only one of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple genitive; thus, if he had only one house, I should say, “this is the house of the traitor,” or “this is the traitor’s house;” but not “this is a house of the traitor’s.”

Note10.—The recurrence of the analytical expression, and likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully avoided. Thus, there is something inelegant and offensive in the following sentence, “the severity of the distress of the son of the king touched the nation.” Much better, “the severe distress of the king’s son touched the nation.”

Note11.—There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or uncouthness, in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in “the army’s name,” “the commons’ vote,” “the lords’ house,” expressions of Mr. Hume, there is a manifest want of dignity and of elegance. Much better, “the name of the army,” “the vote of the commons,” “the house of lords.”

Rule IX.—Pronouns agree with their antecedents, or the nouns which they represent, in gender, number, and person, as, “They respected Cato and his party,” whereCatois singular and masculine, andhisagrees with it in gender and number. “He addressed youand me, and desiredusto follow him,” whereussylleptically represents the two persons. “Thou, who writest.” Here the antecedentthoubeing a person, the relativewho, notwhich, is employed. The antecedent also being of the second person and singular number, the relative is considered as of the same character, and is therefore followed by the verb in the second person and singular number. “Vice, which no man practises with impunity, proved his destruction.” Here the antecedentvicenot being a person, the pronounwhich, of the neuter gender, is therefore employed. “The rivers, which flow into the sea.” Here also the antecedent not being a person, the relative iswhich. It is also considered as in the plural number; and, as all substantives are joined to the third person,which, the representative ofrivers, is joined to the third person plural of the verb.

Back to Index Next