The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

mood." Therefore, know should be knows; thus, "If he knows the way, he does not need a guide."]

"And if there be no difference, one of them must be superfluous, and ought to be rejected."—Murray's Gram., p. 149. "I cannot say that I admire this construction, though it be much used."—Priestley's Gram., p. 172. "We are disappointed, if the verb do not immediately follow it."—Ib., p. 177. "If it were they who acted so ungratefully, they are doubly in fault."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 223. "If art become apparent, it disgusts the reader."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 80. "Though perspicuity be more properly a rhetorical than a grammatical quality, I thought it better to include it in this book."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 238. "Although the efficient cause be obscure, the final cause of those sensations lies open."—Blair's Rhet., p. 29. "Although the barrenness of language, and the want of words be doubtless one cause of the invention of tropes."—Ib., p. 135. "Though it enforce not its instructions, yet it furnishes us with a greater variety."—Ib., p. 353. "In other cases, though the idea be one, the words remain quite separate"—Priestley's Gram., p. 140. "Though the Form of our language be more simple, and has that peculiar Beauty."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. v. "Human works are of no significancy till they be completed."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 245. "Our disgust lessens gradually till it vanish altogether."—Ib., i, 338. "And our relish improves by use, till it arrive at perfection."—Ib., i, 338. "So long as he keep himself in his own proper element."—COKE: ib., i, 233. "Whether this translation were ever published or not I am wholly ignorant."—Sale's Koran, i, 13. "It is false to affirm, 'As it is day, it is light,' unless it actually be day."—Harris's Hermes, p. 246. "But we may at midnight affirm, 'If it be day, it is light.'"—Ibid. "If the Bible be true, it is a volume of unspeakable interest."—Dickinson. "Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."—Heb., v, 8. "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"—Matt., xxii, 45.

   "'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill
    Appear in writing or in judging ill."—Pope, Ess. on Crit.

UNDER NOTE X.—FALSE SUBJUNCTIVES.

"If a man have built a house, the house is his."—Wayland's Moral
Science, p. 286.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the verb have built, which extends the subjunctive mood into the perfect tense, has the appearance of disagreeing with its nominative man. But, according to Note 10th to Rule 14th, "Every such use or extension of the subjunctive mood, as the reader will be likely to mistake for a discord between the verb and its nominative, ought to be avoided as an impropriety." Therefore, have built should be has built; thus, "If a man has built a house, the house is his."]

"If God have required them of him, as is the fact, he has time."—Ib., p. 351. "Unless a previous understanding to the contrary have been had with the Principal."—Berrian's Circular, p. 5. "O if thou have Hid them in some flowery cave."—Milton's Comus, l. 239. "O if Jove's will Have linked that amorous power to thy soft lay."—Milton, Sonnet 1. "SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD: If thou love, If thou loved, If thou have loved, If thou had loved, If thou shall or will love, If thou shall or will have loved."—L. Murray's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 71; Cooper's Murray, 58; D. Adams's Gram., 48; and others. "Till religion, the pilot of the soul, have lent thee her unfathomable coil."—Tupper's Thoughts, p. 170. "Whether nature or art contribute most to form an orator, is a trifling inquiry."—Blair's Rhet., p. 338. "Year after year steals something from us; till the decaying fabric totter of itself, and crumble at length into dust."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 225. "If spiritual pride have not entirely vanquished humility."—West's Letters, p. 184. "Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter."—Exodus, xxi, 31. "It is doubtful whether the object introduced by way of simile, relate to what goes before, or to what follows."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 45.

   "And bridle in thy headlong wave,
    Till thou our summons answer'd have."—Milt., Comus, l. 887.

RULE XV.—FINITE VERBS.

When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the Verb must agree with it in the plural number: as, "The council were divided."—"The college of cardinals are the electors of the pope."—Murray's Key, p. 176. "Quintus Curtius relates, that a number of them were drowned in the river Lycus."—Home's Art of Thinking, p. 125.

   "Yon host come learn'd in academic rules."
        —Rowe's Lucan, vii, 401.

    "While heaven's high host on hallelujahs live."
        —Young's N. Th., iv, 378.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XV.

OBS. 1.—To this rule there are no exceptions; because, the collective noun being a name which even in the singular number "signifies many," the verb which agrees with it, can never properly be singular, unless the collection be taken literally as one aggregate, and not as "conveying the idea of plurality." Thus, the collective noun singular being in general susceptible of two senses, and consequently admitting two modes of concord, the form of the verb, whether singular or plural, becomes the principal index to the particular sense in which the nominative is taken. After such a noun, we can use either a singular verb, agreeing with it literally, strictly, formally, according to Rule 14th; as, "The whole number WAS two thousand and six hundred;" or a plural one, agreeing with it figuratively, virtually, ideally, according to Rule 15th; as, "The whole number WERE two thousand and six hundred."—2 Chron., xxvi, 12. So, when the collective noun is an antecedent, the relative having in itself no distinction of the numbers, its verb becomes the index to the sense of all three; as, "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that IS left."—Isaiah, xxxvii, 4. "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that ARE left."—2 Kings, xix, 4. Ordinarily the word remnant conveys no idea of plurality; but, it being here applied to persons, and having a meaning to which the mere singular neuter noun is not well adapted, the latter construction is preferable to the former. The Greek version varies more in the two places here cited; being plural in Isaiah, and singular in Kings. The Latin Vulgate, in both, is, "pro reliquiis quæ repertæ sunt:" i.e., "for the remains, or remnants, that are found."

OBS. 2.—Dr. Adam's rule is this: "A collective noun may be joined with a verb either of the singular or of the plural number; as, Multitudo stat, or stant; the multitude stands, or stand."—Latin and English Gram. To this doctrine, Lowth, Murray, and others, add: "Yet not without regard to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea."—Lowth, p. 74; Murray, 152. If these latter authors mean, that collective nouns are permanently divided in import, so that some are invariably determined to the idea of unity, and others to that of plurality, they are wrong in principle; for, as Dr. Adam remarks, "A collective noun, when joined with a verb singular, expresses many considered as one whole; but when joined with a verb plural, it signifies many separately, or as individuals."—Adam's Gram., p. 154. And if this alone is what their addition means, it is entirely useless; and so, for all the purposes of parsing, is the singular half of the rule itself. Kirkham divides this rule into two, one for "unity of idea," and the other for "plurality of idea," shows how each is to be applied in parsing, according to his "systematick order;" and then, turning round with a gallant tilt at his own work, condemns both, as idle fabrications, which it were better to reject than to retain; alleging that, "The existence of such a thing as 'unity or plurality of idea,' as applicable to nouns of this class, is doubtful."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 59.[394] How then shall a plural verb or pronoun, after a collective noun, be parsed, seeing it does not agree with the noun by the ordinary rule of agreement? Will any one say, that every such construction is bad English? If this cannot be maintained, rules eleventh and fifteenth of this series are necessary. But when the noun conveys the idea of unity or takes the plural form, the verb or pronoun has no other than a literal agreement by the common rule; as,

   "A priesthood, such as Baal's was of old,
    A people, such as never was till now."—Cowper.

OBS. 3.—Of the construction of the verb and collective noun, a late British author gives the following account: "Collective nouns are substantives which signify many in the singular number. Collective nouns are of two sorts: 1. Those which cannot become plural like other substantives; as, nobility, mankind, &c. 2. Those which can be made plural by the usual rules for a substantive; as, 'A multitude, multitudes; a crowd, crowds;' &c. Substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural, generally require a plural verb. They are cattle, cavalry, clergy, commonalty, gentry, laity, mankind, nobility, peasantry people, populace, public, rabble, &c. [;] as, 'The public are informed.' Collective nouns which form a regular plural, such as, number, numbers; multitude, multitudes; have, like all other substantives, a singular verb, when they are in the singular number; and a plural verb, when they are in the plural number; as, 'A number of people is assembled; Numbers are assembled.'—'The fleet was dispersed; a part of it was injured; the several parts are now collected.'"— Nixon's Parser, p. 120. To this, his main text, the author appends a note, from which the following passages are extracted: "There are few persons acquainted with Grammar, who may not have noticed, in many authors as well as speakers, an irregularity in supposing collective nouns to have, at one time, a singular meaning, and consequently to require a singular verb; and, at an other time, to have a plural meaning, and therefore to require a plural verb. This irregularity appears to have arisen from the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun. This defect the author has endeavoured to supply; and, upon his definition, he has founded the two rules above. It is allowed on all sides that, hitherto, no satisfactory rules have been produced to enable the pupil to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, when a collective noun should have a singular verb, and when a plural one. A rule that simply tells its examiner, that when a collective noun in the nominative case conveys the idea of unity, its verb should be singular; and when it implies plurality, its verb should be plural, is of very little value; for such a rule will prove the pupil's being in the right, whether he should put the verb in the singular or the plural."—Ibid.

OBS. 4.—The foregoing explanation has many faults; and whoever trusts to it, or to any thing like it, will certainly be very much misled. In the first place, it is remarkable that an author who could suspect in others "the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun," should have hoped to supply the defect by a definition so ambiguous and ill-written as is the one above. Secondly, his subdivision of this class of nouns into two sorts, is both baseless and nugatory; for that plurality which has reference to the individuals of an assemblage, has no manner of connexion or affinity with that which refers to more than one such aggregate; nor is there any interference of the one with the other, or any ground at all for supposing that the absence of the latter is, has been, or ought to be, the occasion for adopting the former. Hence, thirdly, his two rules, (though, so far as they go, they seem not untrue in themselves,) by their limitation under this false division, exclude and deny the true construction of the verb with the greater part of our collective nouns. For, fourthly, the first of these rules rashly presumes that any collective noun which in the singular number implies a plurality of individuals, is consequently destitute of any other plural; and the second accordingly supposes that no such nouns as, council, committee, jury, meeting, society, assembly, court, college, company, army, host, band, retinue, train, multitude, number, part, half, portion, majority, minority, remainder, set, sort, kind, class, nation, tribe, family, race, and a hundred more, can ever be properly used with a plural verb, except when they assume the plural form. To prove the falsity of this supposition, is needless. And, finally, the objection which this author advances against the common rules, is very far from proving them useless, or not greatly preferable to his own. If they do not in every instance enable the student to ascertain with certainty which form of concord he ought to prefer, it is only because no rules can possibly tell a man precisely