The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

mood, or part of a sentence, is sometimes put as the nominative case to the verb."—Murray's Gram., p. 144; Fisk's, 123; Kirkham's, 188; Lennie's, 99; Bullions's, 89; and many more. Now the objective before the infinitive may not improperly be called the subject of this form of the verb, as the nominative is, of the finite; but to call it "the subject of the affirmation," is plainly absurd; because no infinitive, in English, ever expresses an affirmation. And again, if a whole phrase or sentence is made the subject of a finite verb, or of an affirmation, no one word contained in it, can singly claim this title. Nor can the whole, by virtue of this relation, be said to be "in the nominative case;" because, in the nature of things, neither phrases nor sentences are capable of being declined by cases.

OBS. 13.—Any phrase or sentence which is made the subject of a finite verb, must be taken in the sense of one thing, and be spoken of as a whole; so that the verb's agreement with it, in the third person singular, is not an exception to Rule 14th, but a construction in which the verb may be parsed by that rule. For any one thing merely spoken of, is of the third person singular, whatever may be the nature of its parts. Not every phrase or sentence, however, is fit to be made the subject of a verb;—that is, if its own import, and not the mere expression, is the thing whereof we affirm. Thus Dr. Ash's example for this very construction, "a sentence made the subject of a verb," is, I think, a palpable solecism: "The King and Queen appearing in public was the cause of my going."—Ash's Gram., p. 52. What is here before the verb was, is no "sentence;" but a mere phrase, and such a one as we should expect to see used independently, if any regard were had to its own import. The Doctor would tell us what "was the cause of his going:" and here he has two nominatives, which are equivalent to the plural they; q.d., "They appearing in public was the cause." But such a construction is not English. It is an other sample of the false illustration which grammar receives from those who invent the proof-texts which they ought to quote.

OBS. 14.—One of Murray's examples of what he erroneously terms "nominative sentences," i.e., "sentences or clauses constituting the subject of an affirmation," is the following: "A desire to excel others in learning and virtue [,] is commendable."—Gram., 8vo, p. 144. Here the verb is agrees regularly with the noun desire, and with that only; the whole text being merely a simple sentence, and totally irrelevant to the doctrine which it accompanies.[388] But the great "Compiler" supposes the adjuncts of this noun to be parts of the nominative, and imagines the verb to agree with all that precedes it. Yet, soon after, he expends upon the ninth rule of Webster's Philosophical Grammar a whole page of useless criticism, to show that the adjuncts of a noun are not to be taken as parts of the nominative; and that, when objectives are thus subjoined, "the assertion grammatically respects the first nouns only."—Ib., p. 148. I say useless, because the truth of the doctrine is so very plain. Some, however, may imagine an example like the following to be an exception to it; but I do not, because I think the true nominative suppressed:

   "By force they could not introduce these gods;
    For ten to one in former days was odds."—Dryden's Poems, p. 38.

OBS. 15.—Dr. Webster's ninth rule is this: "When the nominative consists of several words, and the last of the names is in the plural number, the verb is commonly in the plural also; as, 'A part of the exports consist of raw silk.' 'The number of oysters increase.' GOLDSMITH. 'Such as the train of our ideas have lodged in our memories.' LOCKE. 'The greater part of philosophers have acknowledged the excellence of this government.' ANACHARSIS."—Philos. Gram., p. 146; Impr. Gram., 100. The last of these examples Murray omits; the second he changes thus: "A number of men and women were present." But all of them his reasoning condemns as ungrammatical. He thinks them wrong, upon the principle, that the verbs, being plural, do not agree with the first nouns only. Webster, on the contrary, judges them all to be right; and, upon this same principle, conceives that his rule must be so too. He did not retract or alter the doctrine after he saw the criticism, but republished it verbatim, in his "Improved Grammar," of 1831. Both err, and neither convinces the other.

OBS. 16.—In this instance, as Webster and Murray both teach erroneously, whoever follows either, will be led into many mistakes. The fact is, that some of the foregoing examples, though perhaps not all, are perfectly right; and hundreds more, of a similar character, might be quoted, which no true grammarian would presume to condemn. But what have these to do with the monstrous absurdity of supposing objective adjuncts to be "parts of the actual nominative?" The words, "part," "number," "train" and the like, are collective nouns; and, as such, they often have plural verbs in agreement with them. To say, "A number of men and women were present," is as correct as to say, "A very great number of our words are plainly derived from the Latin."—Blair's Rhet., p. 86. Murray's criticism, therefore, since it does not exempt these examples from the censure justly laid upon Webster's rule, will certainly mislead the learner. And again the rule, being utterly wrong in principle, will justify blunders like these: "The truth of the narratives have never been disputed;"—"The virtue of these men and women are indeed exemplary."—Murray's Gram., p. 148. In one of his notes, Murray suggests, that the article an or a before a collective noun must confine the verb to the singular number; as, "A great number of men and women was collected."—Ib., p. 153. But this doctrine he sometimes forgot or disregarded; as, "But if a number of interrogative or exclamatory sentences are thrown into one general group."—Ib., p. 284; Comly, 166; Fisk, 160; Ingersoll, 295.

OBS. 17.—Cobbett, in a long paragraph, (the 245th of his English Grammar,) stoutly denies that any relative pronoun can ever be the nominative to a verb; and, to maintain this absurdity, he will have the relative and its antecedent to be always alike in case, the only thing in which they are always independent of each other. To prove his point, he first frames these examples: "The men who are here, the man who is here; the cocks that crow, the cock that crows;" and then asks, "Now, if the relative be the nominative, why do the verbs change, seeing that here is no change in the relative?" He seems ignorant of the axiom, that two things severally equal to a third, are also equal to each other: and accordingly, to answer his own question, resorts to a new principle: "The verb is continually varying. Why does it vary? Because it disregards the relative and goes and finds the antecedent, and accommodates its number to that."—Ibid. To this wild doctrine, one erratic Irishman yields a full assent; and, in one American grammatist, we find a partial and unintentional concurrence with it.[389] But the fact is, the relative agrees with the antecedent, and the verb agrees with the relative: hence all three of the words are alike in person and number. But between the case of the relative and that of the antededent [sic—KTH], there never is, or can be, in our language, any sort of connexion or interference. The words belong to different clauses; and, if both be nominatives, they must be the subjects of different verbs: or, if the noun be sometimes put absolute in the nominative, the pronoun is still left to its own verb. But Cobbett concludes his observation thus: "You will observe, therefore, that, when I, in the etymology and syntax as relating to relative pronouns, speak of relatives as being in the nominative case, I mean, that they relate to nouns or to personal pronouns, which are in that case. The same observation applies to the other cases."—Ib., ¶ 245. This suggestion betrays in the critic an unaccountable ignorance of his subject.

OBS. 18.—Nothing is more certain, than that the relatives, who, which, what, that, and as, are often nominatives, and the only subjects of the verbs which follow them: as, "The Lord will show who are his, and who is holy."—Numbers, xvi, 5. "Hardly is there any person, but who, on such occasions, is disposed to be serious."—Blair's Rhet., p. 469. "Much of the merit of Mr. Addison's Cato depends upon that moral turn of thought which distinguishes it."—Ib., 469. "Admit not a single word but what is necessary."—Ib., p. 313. "The pleader must say nothing but what is true; and, at the same time, he must avoid saying any thing that will hurt his cause."—Ib., 313. "I proceed to mention such as appear to me most material."—Ib., p. 125. After but or than, there is sometimes an ellipsis of the relative, and perhaps also of the antecedent; as, "There is no heart but must feel them."—Blair's Rhet., p. 469. "There is no one but must be sensible of the extravagance."—Ib., p. 479. "Since we may date from it a more general and a more concerted opposition to France than there had been before."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 213. That is, "than what there had been before;"—or, "than any opposition which there had been before." "John has more fruit than can be gathered in a week."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., pp. 196 and 331. I suppose this sentence to mean, "John has more fruit than what can be gathered in a week." But the author of it denies that it is elliptical, and seems to suppose that can be gathered agrees with John. Part of his comment stands thus: "The above sentence—'John has more fruit than can be gathered in a week'—in every respect full and perfect—must, to be grammatical! according to all the 'old theories,' stand, John has more fruit than that fruit is which, or which fruit can be gathered in a week!!!"—Ib., 331. What shall be done with the headlong critic who thus mistakes exclamation points for arguments, and multiplies his confidence in proportion to his fallacies and errors?

OBS. 19.—In a question, the nominative I or thou put after the verb, controls the agreement, in preference to the interrogative who, which, or what, put before it; as, "Who am I? What am I? Who art thou? What art thou?" And, by analogy, this seems to be the case with all plurals; as, "Who are we? Who are you? Who are they? What are these?" But sometimes the interrogative pronoun is the only nominative used; and then the verb, whether singular or plural, must agree with this nominative, in the third person, and not, as Cobbett avers, with an antecedent understood: as, "Who is in the house? Who are in the house? Who strikes the iron? Who strike the iron? Who was in the street? Who were in the street?"—Cobbett's Gram., ¶ 245. All the interrogative pronouns may be used in either number, but, in examples like the following, I imagine the singular to be more proper than the plural: "What have become of our previous customs?"—Hunt's Byron, p. 121. "And what have become of my resolutions to return to God?"—Young Christian, 2d Ed., p. 91. When two nominatives of different properties come after the verb, the first controls the agreement, and neither the plural number nor the most worthy person is always preferred; as, "Is it I? Is it thou? Is it they?"

OBS. 20.—The verb after a relative sometimes has the appearance of disagreeing with its nominative, because the writer and his reader disagree in their conceptions of its mood. When a relative clause is subjoined to what is itself subjunctive or conditional, some writers suppose that the latter verb should be put in the subjunctive mood; as, "If there be any intrigue which stand separate and independent."—Blair's Rhet., p. 457. "The man also would be of considerable use, who should vigilantly attend to every illegal practice that were beginning to prevail."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 171. But I have elsewhere shown, that relatives, in English, are not compatible with the subjunctive mood; and it is certain, that no other mood than the indicative or the potential is commonly used after them. Say therefore, "If there be any intrigue which stands," &c. In assuming to himself the other text, Murray's says, "That man also would be of considerable use, who should vigilantly attend to every illegal practice that was beginning to prevail."—Octavo Gram., p. 366. But this seems too positive. The potential imperfect would be better: viz., "that might begin to prevail."

OBS. 21.—The termination st or est,