neously called by Priestley, the subject of the affirmation;" (Gram., p. 132;) and Murray, Ingersoll, and others, have blindly copied the blunder. See Murray's Gram., p. 184; Ingersoll's, 244. Again, Ingersoll says, "The infinitive mood, or part of a sentence, is sometimes the subject of a verb, and is, therefore, its NOMINATIVE."-Conversations on English Gram., p. 246. To this erroneous deduction, the phraseology used by Murray and others too plainly gives countenance: "The infinitive 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 66 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.* 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 Philo. sophical 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 asser tion 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.

Ors. 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. 'Suc 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

The same may be said of Dr. Webster's "nominative sentences;" three fourths of which are nothing but phrases that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing "an essential part of it," is a flat absurdity? An adjunt is "something added to another, but not essentially a part of it."-Webster's Dict. But, says the Doctor, "Attributes and other words often make an essential part of the nominative; [as,] Our IDEAS of eternity CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'-LOCKE. A wise SON MAKETII a glad father; but a foolish SON IS the heaviness of his mother.' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposi.ion cannot always be true. He that gathereth in summer is a wise son.' Take away the description, that gathereth in summer,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable. These sentences or clauses thus constituting the subject of an affirmation, may be termed nominative sentences."-Improved Gram., p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"-Ib., p. 94; Philos. Gram., 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle temper, and a peaceful life."-Murray's Exercises, p. 8. smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr, is part of a sentence, which is the nominatire case to the verb are. Are is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence, as its nominative case."-Introduction to English Parsing, p. 137. On this principle of analysis, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, must be singular, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous !

"The

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. Το 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. 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, 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."—1b., ¶ 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."—1b., 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."-0. 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

"No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."-Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar, p. 162. "A personal pronoun becomes a nominative, though a relative does not."—Ib., p. 152. This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: "Wright says, that Personal pronouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative pronouns can not be.' Yet he declines his relatives thus: Nominative case, who; possessive, whose; objective, whom !"-Oliver B. Peirce's Grammar, p. 331. This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the former, and accordingly treats who, which, what, whatever, &c., as relative pronouns of the nominative case-or, as he calls them, connective substitutes in the subjective form;" but when what or whatever precedes its noun, or when as is preferred to who or which, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously parse the verbs which belong to the relatives, who, which, and that: as, "Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself."-Peirce's Gram., p. 55. Here Peirce considers whatever to be a mere adjective, and man the subject of will adhere and will find. "Such persons as write grammar, should, themselves, be grammarians."-Ib., p. 330. Here he declares as to be no pronoun, but "a modifying connective," i. e., conjunction; and supposes persons to be the direct subject of write as well as of should be: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its nominative!

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, with which the second person singular of the verb is formed in the indicative present, and, for the solemn style, in the imperfect also; and the termination s or es, with which the third person singular is formed in the indicative present, and only there; are signs of the mood and tense, as well as of the person and number, of the verb. They are not applicable to a future uncertainty, or to any mere supposition in which we would leave the time indefinite and make the action hypothetical; because they are commonly understood to fix the time of the verb to the present or the past, and to assume the action as either doing or done. For this reason, our best writers have always omitted those terminations, when they intended to represent the action as being doubtful and contingent as well as conditional. And this omission constitutes the whole formal difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood. The essential difference has, by almost all grammarians, been conceived to extend somewhat further; for, if it were confined strictly within the limits of the literal variation, the subjunctive mood would embrace only two or three words in the whole formation of each verb. After the example of Priestley, Dr. Murray, A. Murray, Harrison, Alexander, and others, I have given to it all the persons of the two simple tenses, singular and plural; and, for various reasons, I am decidedly of the opinion, that these are its most proper limits. The perfect and pluperfect tenses, being past, cannot express what is really contingent or uncertain; and since, in expressing conditionally what may or may not happen, we use the subjunctive present as embracing the future indefinitely, there is no need of any formal futures for this mood. The comprehensive brevity of this form of the verb, is what chiefly commends it. It is not an elliptical form of the future, as some affirm it to be; nor equivalent to the indicative present, as others will have it; but a true subjunctive, though its distinctive parts are chiefly confined to the second and third persons singular of the simple verb: as, "Though thou wash thee with nitre."-Jer., ii, 22. "It is just, O great king! that a murderer perish.”- -Corneille. "This single crime, in my judgment, were sufficient to condemn him."-Duncan's Cicero, p. 82. "Beware that thou bring not my son thither."-BIBLE: Ward's Gram., p. 128. "See [that] thou tell no man."-Id., ib. These examples can hardly be resolved into any thing else than the subjunctive mood.

NOTES TO RULE XIV.

NOTE I. When the nominative is a relative pronoun, the verb must agree with it in person and number, according to the pronoun's agreement with its true antecedent or antecedents. Example of error: "The second book [of the Æneid] is one of the greatest masterpieces that ever was executed by any hand."-Blair's Rhet., p. 439. Here the true antecedent is masterpieces, and not the word one; but was executed is singular, and "by any hand" implies but one agent. Either say, "It is one of the greatest masterpieces that ever were executed," or else, "It is the greatest

masterpiece that ever was executed by any hand." But these assertions differ much in their import.

NOTE II. "The adjuncts of the nominative do not control its agreement with the verb; as, Six months' interest was due. The progress of his forces was impeded." -W. Allen's Gram., p. 131. "The ship, with all her furniture, was destroyed."Murray's Gram., p. 150. "All appearances of modesty are favourable and prepos sessing."-Blair's Rhet., p. 308. "The power of relishing natural enjoyments is soon gone."-Fuller, on the Gospel, p. 135. "I, your master, command you (not commands)."-Latham's Hand-Book, p. 330.*

as,

66

66

NOTE III.-Any phrase, sentence, mere word, or other sign, taken as one whole, and made the subject of an assertion, requires a verb in the third person singular; "To lie is base."-Adam's Gram., p. 154. When, to read and write, was of itself an honorary distinction."-Hazlitt's Lect., p. 40. "To admit a God and then refuse to worship him, is a modern and inconsistent practice."-Fuller, on the Gos pel, p. 30. "We is a personal pronoun.”—L. Murray's Gram., p. 227. “Th has two sounds."-Ib., p. 161. "The 's is annexed to each."-Bucke's Gram, p. 89. "Ld. stands for lord."-Webster's American Dict., 8vo.

NOTE IV. The pronominal adjectives, each, one, either, and neither, are always in the third person singular; and, when they are the leading words in their clauses, they require verbs and pronouns to agree with them accordingly: as, " Each of you is entitled to his share."-"Let no one deceive himself."

NOTE V.-A neuter or a passive verb between two nominatives should be made to agree with that which precedes it; as, "Words are wind:" except when the terms are transposed, and the proper subject is put after the verb by question or hyperbaton; as, "Ilis pavilion were dark waters and thick clouds of the sky."-Bible. "Who art thou?"—Ib. "The wages of sin is death."—Ib. Murray, Comly, and others, But, of this last example, Churchill says, "Wages are the subject, of which it is affirmed, that they are death."-New Gram., p. 314. If so, is ought to be are; unless Dr. Webster is right, who imagines wages to be singular, and cites this example to prove it so. See his Improved Gram., p. 21.

NOTE VI-When the verb cannot well be made singular, the nominative should be made plural, that they may agree: or, if the verb cannot be plural, let the nominative be singular. Example of error: "For every one of them know their

* Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: Your master, I, commands you (not command)."—Ib. But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, may be changed in person, by being set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second. But even if terms so used do not assimilate in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above. It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: ““1, your master, who commands you to make kaste, an in a hurry."-Hand-Book, p. 334.

+ Professor Fowler says, "One when contrasted with other, sometimes represents plural nouns; as, The reason why the one are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the other for bare powers, seems to be.'-LOCK" Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, p. 242. This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective. For, if one may be plural, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number. "One" and "other" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun class or species, understood, which should have been expressed after the former. See Etym Obs. 19, p. 276,

Dr. Priestley says, "It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nous, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; bat some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh: (as,] Minced pies was regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries. Hume's Hist. A great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it. Ib. By this term was understood, such persons as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world."-English Gram. with Notes, p. 189. The Doctor evidently sup posed all these examples to be bad English, or at least harsh in their construction. And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's “viand" cannot possibly be taken "as the subject of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, substituting for the former, "His meat was locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, The wages of sin is death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be good English. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being “a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th:" (that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]—Churchill's New Gram., p. 313.

several duties."-Hope of Israel, p. 72. Say, “For all of them know their several duties."

แ

NOTE VII.-When the verb has different forms, that form should be adopted, which is the most consistent with present and reputable usage in the style employed: thus, to say familiarly, "The clock hath stricken ;"-" Thou laughedst and talkedst, when thou oughtest to have been silent;"-"He readeth and writeth, but he doth not cipher," would be no better, than to use don't, won't, can't, shan't, and didn't, in preaching.

NOTE VIII-Every finite verb not in the imperative mood, should have a separate nominative expressed; as, "I came, I saw, I conquered :" except when the verb is repeated for the sake of emphasis, or connected to an other in the same construction, or put after but or than; as, “Not an eminent orator has lived but is an example of it."-Ware. "Where more is meant than meets the ear."--Milton's Allegro. (See Obs. 5th and Obs. 18th above.)

"They bud, blow, wither, fall, and die."- Watts.

"That evermore his teeth they chatter,

Chatter, chatter, chatter still.- Wordsworth.

NOTE IX-A future contingency is best expressed by a verb in the subjunctive present; and a mere supposition, with indefinite time, by a verb in the subjunctive imperfect; but a conditional circumstance assumed as a fact, requires the indicative mood:* as, "If thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever."-Bible. "If it were not so, I would have told you."-Ib. "If thou went, nothing would be gained." "Though he is poor, he is contented."-" Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor."-2 Cor., viii, 9.

NOTE X.-In general, 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: as, "We are not sensible of disproportion, till the difference between the quantities compared become the most striking circumStance."-Kames, El. of Crit., îì, 341. Say rather, "becomes ;" which is indicative. "Till the general preference of certain forms have been declared."-Priestley's Gram, Pref., p. xvii. Say, "has been declared;" for "preference" is here the nominative, and Dr. Priestley himself recognizes no other subjunctive tenses than the present and the imperfect; as, "If thou love, If thou loved."—Ib., p. 16.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XIV.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.-VERB AFTER THE NOMINATIVE.

"Before you left Sicily, you was reconciled to Verres."-Duncan's Cicero, p. 19.

[FORMULE-Not proper, because the passive verb was reconciled is of the singular number, and does not agree with its nominative you, which is of the second person plural. But, according to Rule 14th, "Every finite verb must agree with its subject, or nominative, in person and number." Therefore, was reconciled should be were reconciled; thus, "Before you left Sicily, you were reconciled to Verres."]

"Knowing that you was my old master's good friend.”—Spect., No. 517. "When the judge dare not act, where is the loser's remedy?"— Webster's Essays, p. 131. "Which extends it no farther than the variation of the verb extend."-Murray's Gram., 8vo, Vol. i, p. 211. "They presently dry without hurt, as myself hath often proved."-Roger Williams. Whose goings forth hath been from of old, from everlasting."-Keith's Evidences. "You was paid to fight against Alexander, not to rail at him."-Porter's Analysis, p. 70. "Where more than one part of speech is almost always concerned."—Churchill's Gram., Pref., p. viii. "Nothing less than murders, rapines, and conflagrations, employ their thoughts."-Duncan's Cicero, p. 175. "I wondered where you was, my dear."-Lloyd's Poems, p. 185. "When thou most sweetly sings."Drummond of Hawthornden. "Who dare, at the present day, avow himself equal to the task?"Music of Nature, p. 11. "Every body are very kind to her, and not discourteous to me."-Byron's Letters. "As to what thou says respecting the diversity of opinions."-The Friend, Vol. ix, p. 45. **If the excellence of Dryden's works was lessened by his indigence, their number was increased.”—Dr. Johnson. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an if, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative too often, has the following note upon it: If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written were If the excellence of Dryden's works were lessened-Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote correct English, instead of grammar."-Philosophical Gram, p. 228. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.