Under Note 1.-Nominatives that Disagree.

Neither he nor you was there.

Either the boys or I were in fault.

Neither he nor I intends to be present.

Neither the captain nor the sailors was saved.

Whether one person or more was concerned in the business, does not yet appear.

Under Note 2.-Complete the Concord.

Are they or I expected to be there?

Neither he, nor am I, capable of it.

Either he has been imprudent, or his associates vindictive.
Neither were their riches, nor their influence great.

Under Note 3.-Place of the First Person.

I and my father were riding out.

The premiums were given to me and George.
I and Jane are invited.

They ought to invite me and my sister.

We dreamed a dream in one night, I and he.

Under Note 4.-Distinct Subject Phrases.

To practise tale-bearing, or even to countenance it, are great injustice.

To reveal secrets, or to betray one's friends, are contemptible perfidy.

RULE XIII.-VERBS.

When Verbs are connected by a conjunction, they must either agree in mood, tense, and form, or have separate nominatives expressed: as, "He himself held the plough, sowed the grain, and attended the reapers.""She was proud, but she is now humble."

EXCEPTION.

Verbs differing in mood, tense, or form, may sometimes agree with the same nominative, especially if the simplest verbs be placed first; as,

"What nothing earthly gives or can destroy."-Pope.
"Some are, and must be, greater than the rest."-Id.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XIII.

OBS. 1.-When separate nominatives are expressed, distinct sentences are formed, and the verbs have not a common construction. Those examples which require a repetition of the nominative might be corrected equally well by Note 5th to Rule 9th.

OBS. 2.-Those parts which are common to several verbs, are generally exprossed to the first, and understood to the rest: as, "Every sincere endea vour to amend shall be assisted, [shall be] accepted, and [shall be] rewarded."

"Honourably do the best you can" [do]." He thought as I did" [think]. "You have seen it, but I have not" [seen it]." If you will go, I will" [go].

NOTES TO RULE XIII.

NOTE I. The preterit should not be employed to form the compound tenses, nor should the perfect participle be used for the preterit. Thus: say, "To have gone,"-not, "To have went," and, "I did it,"-not, "I done it."

NOTE II.-Care should be taken, to give every verb its appropriate form and signification. Thus: say, "He lay by the fire,"-not, "Ile laid by the fire;"-" He had entered into the connexion," not, "He was entered into the connexion ;”—“ I would rather stay,”-not, "I had rather stay."

OBS.-Several verbs which resemble each other in form, are frequently confounded: as, to flee, to fly; to lay, to lie; to sit, to set; to fall, to fell; to rend, to rent; to ride, to rid; &c. Some others are often misapplied; as, learn, for teach. There are also erroneous forms of some of the compound tenses: as, "We will be convinced," for, "We shall be convinced;"-"If I had have seen him," for, "If I had seen him." All such errors are to be corrected by the foregoing note.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XIII.-VERBS. They would neither go in themselves, nor suffered others to

enter.

[FORMULE.-Not proper, because the two verbs would go and suffered, which a connected without separate nominatives, do not agree in mood. But according Rule 13th, "When verbs are connected by a conjunction, they must either agree mood, tense, and form, or have separate nominatives expressed." The sentence is best* corrected by changing suffered to would suffer; (would understood;) thus, They would neither go in themselves, nor suffer others to enter.]

Doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

Did he not tell thee his fault, and entreated thee to forgive him?

If he understands the business, and attend to it, wherein is he deficient?

The day is approaching, and hastens upon us, in which we must give an account of our stewardship.

If thou dost not turn unto the Lord, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, great will be thy condemnation.-Barclay.

There are a few who have kept their integrity to the Lord, and prefer his truth to all other enjoyments.

This report was current yesterday, and agrees with what we heard before.

Virtue is generally praised, and would be generally practised also, if men were wise.

* Errors under this rule may generally be corrected in three ways: 1. By changing the first verb, to agree with the second-2. By changing the second verb, to agree with the first-8. By inserting the nominative. The form preferred, is in the Key.

Under Note 1.--Preterits and Participles.

He would have went with us, if we had invited him.
They have chose the part of honour and virtue.
He soon begun to be weary of having nothing to do.
Somebody has broke my slate.

I seen him when he done it.

Under Note 2.-Adapt Form to Sense.

IIe was entered into the conspiracy.

The American planters grow cotton and rice.

The report is predicated on truth.

I entered the room and set down.

Go and lay down, my son.

With such books, it will always be difficult to learn children to read.

RULE XIV.--PARTICIPLES.

Participles relate to nouns or pronouns, or else are governed by prepositions: as, Elizabeth's tutor, at one time paying her a visit, found her employed in reading Plato."Hume.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

A participle sometimes relates to a preceding phrase or sentence, of which it forms no part; as,

"But ever to do ill our sole delight,

As being the contrary to his high will."-Milton.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

With an infinitive denoting being or action in the abstract, a participle is sometimes also taken abstractly; (that is, without reference to any particular noun, pronoun, or other subject;) as, "To seem compelled, is disagreeable.” "To keep always praying aloud, is plainly impossible."

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XIV.

OBS. 1.-To this rule there are properly no other exceptions; for we cannot agree with Murray that it is strictly correct to make participles in ing the subjects or objects of verbs, while they retain the government and adjuncts of participles; as, "Not attending to this rule, is the cause of a very common error.' -Murray's Key. "Ile abhorred being in debt."-Ibid. Cavilling and objecting upon any subject, is much easier than clearing up difficulties." -Bp. Butler. This mixed and erroneous construction of the participle, is a great blemish in the style of several English authors. It is at best a useless anomaly, which it is always easy to avoid; as, "Inattention to this rule is the cause of a very common error."-"He abhorred debt."- "To cavil and object upon any subject is much easier than to clear up difficulties."

OBS. 2.-The word to which the participle relates, is sometimes understood; as, 66 Granting this to be true, what is to be inferred from it ?"-Murray. That is, "I granting this to be true, ask what is to be inferred from it""The very chin was, [1,] modestly speaking, [say,] as long as my whole face."-Addison. Some grammarians have erroneously taught that such participles are put absolute.

OBS. 3.-Participles are almost always placed after the words on which their construction depends, but sometimes they are introduced before them; as, "Immur'd in cypress shades, a sorcerer dwells."-Milton.

NOTES TO RULE XIV.

NOTE I.-Active Participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived; the preposition of, therefore, should never be used after the participle, when the verb does not require it. Thus, in phrases like the following, of is improper: "Keeping of one day in seven,"-"By preaching of repentance," "They left beating of Paul."

OBS.-When participles are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb, they become adjectives; and, as such, they cannot govern an object after them. The following sentence is therefore inaccurate: "When Caius did any thing unbecoming his dignity."-Jones's Church History. Such errors are to be corrected either by Note 15th to Rule 4th, or by changing the particle prefixed; as, Unbecoming to his diguity," or, "Not becoming his dignity."

66

NOTE II.--When a transitive participle is converted into a noun, of must be inserted to govern the object following.

OBS. 1.-An imperfect or a compound participle, preceded by an article, an adjective, or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, becomes a verbal noun; and, as such, it cannot govern an object after it. A word which may be the object of the participle in its proper construction, requires the prepo sition of, to connect it with the verbal noun; as, 1. THE PARTICIPLE: Worshiping idols, the Jews sinned."-" Thus worshiping idols,-In worshiping idols,-or, By worshiping idols, they sinned." 2. THE VERBAL NOUN: worshiping of idols,--Such worshiping of idols,-or, Their worshiping of idd was sinful." "In the worshiping of idols, there is sin."

1

OBS. 2.-When the use of the preposition produces ambiguity or harsnness, the expression must be varied. Thus, the sentence, "He mentions Newton's writing of a commentary," is both ambiguous and awkward. If the preposition be omitted, the word writing will have a double construction, which is inadmissible. Some would say, "He mentions Newton writing a commentary." This is still worse; because it makes the leading word in sense the adjunct in construction. The meaning may be correctly expressed thus: "He mentions that Newton wrote a commentary." By his studying the Scriptures, he became wise." Here his serves only to render the sentence incorrect: all such possessives are to be expunged by Note 5th to Rule

19th.

OBS. 3.-We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word retained unchanged in connexion with it; as, "I have some recollection of his father's being a judge."" To prevent its being a dry detail of terms."-Buck. The noun after the verbal, is in apposition with the possessive going before. Nouns that are in apposition with the possessive case, do not admit the possessive sign. But the above-mentioned construction is anomalous, and perhaps it would be better to avoid it; thus: "I have some recollection that his father was a judge.". "To prevent it from being a dry detail of terms." OBS. 4.-The verbal noun should not be accompanied by any adjuncts of the verb or participle, unless they be taken into composition; as, "The hypocrite's hope is like the giving up of the ghost." The following phrase is therefore inaccurate: "For the more easily reading of large numbers." Yet if we say, "For reading large numbers the more easily," the construction is different, and not inaccurate.

NOTE III.-A participle should not be used where the infin

itive mood, the verbal noun, a common substantive, or a phrase equivalent, will better express the meaning.

OBS. 1.-Participles that have become nouns, may be used as such with or without the article; as, spelling, reading, writing, drawing. But we sometimes find those which retain the government and the adjuncts of participles, used as nouns before or after verbs; as, "Exciting such disturbances, is unlawful."-"Rebellion is rising against government." This mongrel construction is liable to ambiguity, and ought to be avoided. The infinitive mood, the verbal or some other noun, or a clause introduced by the conjunction that, will generally express the idea in a better manner; as, "To excite such disturbances,-The exciting of such disturbances, The excitation of such disturbances, or, That one should excite such disturbances, is unlawful."

OBS. 2.-After verbs signifying to persevere or to desist, the participle in ing, relating to the nominative, may be used in stead of the infinitive connected to the verb; as, "So when they continued asking him."-John, viii, 7. Here continued is intransitive, and asking relates to they. Greek, 'ns de ¿TÉμEVOV ¿ρWTWVTES AUTÒv. Latin, "Cùm ergo perseverarent interrogantes cum.' But in sentences like the following, the participle seems to be improperly made the object of the verb: "I intend doing it."-"I remember meeting him." Better, "I intend to do it.""I remember to have met him." Verbs do not govern participles.

OBS. 3.-After verbs of beginning, omitting, and avoiding, some writers employ the participle in English, though the analogy of general grammar evidently requires in such cases the infinitive or a noun; as, "It is now above three years since he began printing."—Dr. Adam's Pref. to Rom. Antiquities. "He omits giving an account of them."-Tooke's Div. of Purley, Vol. i, p. 251. "He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely." Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. i, p. 194. If these examples are good English, (for the point is questionable,) the verbs are all intransitive, and the participles relate to the nominatives going before, as in the text quoted in the preceding observation. But Murray, not understanding this construction, or not observing what verbs admit of it, has very unskillfully laid it down as a rule, that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb;" whereas he himself, on the preceding page, had adopted from Lowth a different doctrine, and cautioned the learner against treating words in ing, "as if they were of an amphibious species, partly nouns and partly verbs," that is, "partly nouns and partly participles;" for, according to Murray, participles are verbs. The term substantive phrase" is a solecism, invented merely to designate this anomalous construction. Copying Lowth again, he defines a phrase to be "two or more words rightly put together;" and whatsoever words are rightly put together, may be regularly parsed. But how can one indivisible word be made two different parts of speech at once? And is not this the situation of every transitive participle that is made either the subject or the object of a verb? Adjuncts never alter either the nature or the construction of the words on which they depend; and participial nouns always differ from participles in both. The former express actions as things; the latter attribute them to their agents or recipients.

NOTE IV. In the use of participles and of verbal nouns, the leading word in sense, should always be made the leading or governing word in the construction.

OBS.-A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his strength's declining." "He was sensible of his strength declining." In the former sentence the noun strength