Chapter 85
It must also agree with it in number,--_we walk_, not _we walks_: _he walks_, not _he walk_.
Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb.
A. _It is I, your master, who command you._ Query? would _it is I, your master, who commands you_, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.
B. _The wages of sin is death._ Query? would _the wages of sin _are_ death_ be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb.
-- 554. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry us through a portion of the difficulties.
_Rule._--In sentences, where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a p.r.o.noun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,--_I, your master, command you_ (not _commands_): _your master, I, commands you_ (not _command_).
To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is necessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun substantive and a p.r.o.noun,--_I, the keeper_; _he, the merchant_, &c.
Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person--_John speaks_, _the men run_, _the commander gives orders_. Consequently the verb is of the third person also. {440}
But, the p.r.o.noun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a p.r.o.noun of either person, the first or second: _I_ or _thou_--_I the commander_--_thou the commander_.--In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the p.r.o.noun which requires a first or second?
Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and, undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb. We may ill.u.s.trate this from the a.n.a.logy of a similar construction in respect to number--_a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road_. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression _I, your master_, the ideas are two; viz. the idea expressed by _I_, and the idea expressed by _master_. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single.
_Your master, I_, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning the _master_, and it is intended to say what _he_ does. The word _I_ merely defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both.
From the a.n.a.lysis of the structure of complex subjects of the
_Rule._--In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or p.r.o.noun) which comes first.
-- 555. But the expression _it is I, your master, who command_ (or _commands_) _you_, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions.
1. _It is I._ 2. _Who commands you._
{441}
Here, the word _master_ is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, _i.e._, the whole sentence may be divided into
Either--_it is I your master_-- Or--_your master who commands you_.
This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (_command_ or _commands_) is governed, not by either the personal p.r.o.noun or the substantive, but by the relative, _i.e._, in the particular case before us, not by either _I_ or _master_, but by _who_.
And this brings us to the following question--with which of the two antecedents does the _relative_ agree? with _I_ or with _master_?
This may be answered by the two following rules:--
_Rule 1._--When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus--
1. It is _I_ your _master_-- 2. Who _command_ you.
_Rule 2._--When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus--
1. It is _I_-- 2. Your _master_ who _commands_ you.
This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called _the distribution of the substantive antecedent_ will bear criticism.
_Rule 1._ That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word _master_ is logically connected with the word _command_; and this fact makes the expression, _It is I your master who commands you_ the better of the two.
_Rule 2._ That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the {442} relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_) _you_.
To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:--
1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.
2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.
3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself.
4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.
Respecting the person of the verb in the _first_ proposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt. _I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am_ (not _is_) _in a hurry_. Here, _I am in a hurry_ is the first proposition; _who commands you to make haste_, the second.
It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of lat.i.tude which is not admissible in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence.
-- 556. _The concord of number._--It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.
_Rule 1._ That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression as _the wages of sin is death_, is to consider _death_ not as the subject, but as the predicate; in other words, to consider the construction to be, _death is the wages of sin_.
_Rule 2._ That, except in the case of the word _there_ (p. 434), the word which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved.
{443}
_Rule 3._ That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. _The sun _and_ moon s.h.i.+ne_,--_the sun_ in conjunction with _the moon s.h.i.+nes_.
-- 557. _Plural subjects with singular predicates._--The wages of sin _are_ death.--Honest men _are_ the salt of the earth.
_Singular subjects with plural predicates._--These constructions are rarer than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more.
Sixpence _is_ twelve halfpennies.
He _is_ all head and shoulders.
Vulnera totus _erat_.
Tu _es_ deliciae meae.
[Greek: Hektor, atar su moi essi pater kai potnia meter,]
[Greek: ede kasignetos, su de moi thaleros parakoites].
{444}
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.
-- 558. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) _objective_, and (2.) _modal_.