ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 



e assertion to be made is true of the individuals, 

 the plural should be used ; in most instances the 

 plural alone is right, in few or none is it altogether 

 wrong. 



2. Singular nouns (or pronouns) coupled by 

 and naturally require the verb and pronoun to be 

 in the plural ; as, ' John and William are learning 

 their lessons.' One might think that no doubt 

 could ever arise in such constructions ; yet, if we 

 follow the rule blindly, according to the letter, 

 and not the spirit, we might go wrong even in this 

 simple case. The following sentences are correct, 

 and yet, if we looked only at the grammatical form 

 of the subjects, the verbs should be plural : ' The 

 wheel and axle is one of the mechanical powers. 

 Bread and butter is my usual breakfast. Hanging 

 and beheading is in that country the punishment 

 of treason.' The grounds of these exceptions are 

 evident. 



Instead of and, the preposition with is some- 

 times used to connect the parts of a collective 

 subject, and then it is a disputed point whether 

 the verb should be singular or plural. Ex., ' The 

 captain with his men were taken prisoners.' The 

 sense requires the plural ; but, grammatically, 

 there is only a singular subject, captain, for 

 men is the objective after with; so that by rule it 

 should be, 'was taken prisoner.' It is better to 

 avoid all such constructions, and say simply : 

 * The captain and his men,' c. ; or, if the captain 

 must be kept prominent, ' The captain was made 

 prisoner, along with his men.' 



Singular nouns connected by or, take the verb 

 in the singular ; as, 'Either John or James has\he 

 watch in his pocket.' The reason is obvious ; it 

 is one or the other, but only one, that has it. A 

 singular verb is also generally used when neither 

 nor is the connective. Ex, ' Neither John nor 

 James has the watch.' Some, indeed, maintain 

 that it ought to be have, since the ' not-having ' is 

 affirmed of both. To this it may be answered 

 that, though affirmed of both, the affirmation is 

 made of each separately 'Neither (has) John nor 

 has James.' This is an effect of all the distributive 

 adjectives, each, every, either, neither. Ex., 'Every 

 physician, and every clergyman, is by education a 

 gentleman.' 



Thus the number of the verb is, with a little 

 consideration, not so difficult a matter to deter- 

 mine. But what shall we say about the pronoun 

 in cases like the following : 'Either the boy or the 

 girl has left his (?), her (?) gloves. Any person 

 can do it for himself (?), herself (?).' There seems 

 to be only one way of escape from this difficulty 

 to use the plural pronoun their, themselves, in 

 which the distinction of gender is not marked. 

 Whenever strict grammar and sense conflict, it is 

 the former that must give way. Examples of this 

 solution of the difficulty might be collected in any 

 number from the best writers. Take the follow- 

 ing : ' Let each esteem other better than them- 

 selves' (Bible). ' Every person's happiness depends, 

 in part, upon the respect they (for he or she) meet 

 with in the world ' (Paley). ' Everybody began to 

 have their vexation ' (Miss Austen). 



Concord of Pronouns. 



The agreement of personal pronouns with the 

 nouns to which they refer, has been noticed along 

 with the concord of verbs. Great care is requisite 



to make the reference of the pronoun clear and 

 unmistakable. 



The right use of relative pronouns is an im- 

 portant point in language. Who is employed 

 when the reference is to persons, and which when 

 it is to inferior animals or things. That is applied 

 both to persons and things ; and it is usually said 

 that that may be used as a substitute for -who 

 and which. But this statement requires consider- 

 able modification, as may be made to appear 

 thus: 



Who and which occur having two very different 

 senses or effects, (i.) In the following examples 

 they introduce adjective-sentences, in order to limit 

 or define nouns. Ex., ' I met the man whom we 

 saw yesterday. The old house which stood at the 

 corner of the street has been burnt down.' (2.) In 

 other cases they introduce sentences that are 

 either principal, or, if subordinate, of the kind 

 called adverbial ; and then the relative itself is 

 always resolvable into a conjunction of some kind 

 and a personal pronoun. Ex., ' I met the gardener 

 this morning, who told me that there had been 

 rain during the night.' There are here two co- 

 ordinate sentences, and who = and he. ' Why 

 should we consult Charles, who ( for he} knows 

 nothing of the matter. He struck the poor dog, 

 which ( = although it) had never done him harm. 

 He by no means wants sense, which (= but that) 

 only serves to aggravate his folly.' 



Now, in no case where the relative is thus re- 

 solvable, could that be substituted for who or 

 which; it would alter the sense entirely. It is 

 only when the purpose of the relative clause is to 

 define the thing meant, that that is ever applied ; 

 and for this purpose its use is in general preferable 

 to that of who or which. ' The city that is called 

 Rome, was founded by Romulus,' is an easier, 

 more natural mode of expression than, ' The city 

 which is,' &c. Introduced by that, the relative 

 clause coalesces better with the noun, and its 

 adjective effect is better felt, than with the heavier, 

 less compact connectives. 



When the relative introduces a defining clause, 

 and is in the objective case, it is often omitted. 

 Thus, it is more idiomatic English to say, ' I have 

 found the book you want,' than' the book that 

 you want.' 



GOVERNMENT. 



One word is said to govern another when it 

 seems to cause it to take on a particular form or 

 inflection, as when a pronoun coming after a pre- 

 position takes the objective form with me (not /). 



The Possessive Case. A noun takes the posses- 

 sive form when another noun follows it in the rela- 

 tion of its property ; as, ' The king's crown.' The 

 possessive relation is often more conveniently ex- 

 pressed by of; as, ' The crown 0/"the most power- 

 ful king on earth.' If the name of the owner be 

 a compound name, the last of the component 

 parts only receives the sign of the possessive : 

 thus, ' The Queen of Great Britain's prerogative ;' 

 also when there are two separate names, as, 

 ' Robertson and Reid's office. The possessive 

 case sometimes stands alone, the governing word 

 being understood. Ex., ' He is at his father's 

 (house). Have you seen St Paul's (Church) ?' 



The Objective Case. Transitive verbs and pre- 

 positions take the objective case after them. It is 

 only when a pronoun is the object that there is 



591 



