Concord and Regimen; the first of which means Agreement, the latter Government. When the Gender, Number, Case, or Person of two connected words is the same, we have a Concord, and one word agrees with another. There is also a Concord of Mood and Tense; though of this little notice is taken. It is clear, however, that when we say I do this that I may gain by it, we preserve a Concord; and that in saying, either, I do this that I might gain by it, or, I did this that I may gain by it, we break one.

§ 503. Apposition.—Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain.-Here the words Roman emperor explain, or define, the word Caesar; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, Caesar, that is, the Roman emperor, &c. Again, the words Roman emperor, might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction and. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb invades must be changed from the singular to the plural. Now the words Roman emperor are said to be in apposition to Cæsar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, laid alongside (appositi) of the word Cæsar. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, so long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number, provided that the main noun is also singular.

§ 504. In expressions like the king of Saxony's army, we state, not that the army belongs to Saxony, but that

it belongs to the-king-of-Saxony; the whole phrase being dealt with as a single word in the possessive case.

§ 505. A little consideration will teach that, in most cases, the laws of Syntax are neither more nor less than the dictates of common sense applied to language, and that, in many cases, the ordinary rules are superfluous. This applies most especially to the Concords, or Agreements. No one, who speaks English, need be told that in speaking of a man we say he; a woman, she; an inanimate object, it. In doing this, we suit the Pronoun to the Substantive, and use a masculine, a feminine, or a neuter form accordingly. Consequently, the words are said to agree with one another. It would, however, be strange if they did not. The word man is the name of a male. The pronoun he is the same. They are applied to the same object. Again,-if certain pronouns, such as they, apply only to a number of individuals, and never to a single person, and if such a verb as calls applies to a single individual only, and never to a number, it requires no great amount of ingenuity to discover that such an expression as they calls is nonsensical. They denotes a multitude; calls a single individual. How can the two be united? It is, of course, useful to know that the first of these instances gives what the grammarians call a Concord of gender; the second a Concord of Number. Common sense, however, lies at the bottom of both. A Substantive and a Pronoun which each denote an object of the same sex cannot fail to be in the same Gender; and, because they are this, they are said to agree with one another. In like manner a Pronoun and a Verb, when each means the same person or the same number of persons, exhibit the Concords of Person and Number. The Concord of Case is somewhat less simple; neither are the phenomena of Regimen, or Government, on the

whole, so clear as those of Concord. Enough, however, has been said to direct attention and to stimulate curiosity.

§ 506. Though Syntax is, in the main, neither more nor less than common sense, there are certain facts of language which always suffice to render a special study of its rules a matter of necessity. A few of them will be noticed.

Sometimes we have Collectives.

In these the form

is Singular, but the sense is Plural. An army, for instance, consists of a number of soldiers, and the act of an army is, in some sense, the act of numerous individuals rather than that of one collective body. The same applies to words like parliament, family, people, mob, set, gang, &c. Hence, even good writers have uttered such expressions as the multitude pursue pleasure. No doubt such expressions are justifiable. It is, perhaps, better to write thus than to say the multitude pursues, &c. At the same time. it would be wrong to say the meeting were large. As all Collectives give at once the ideas of unity and of plurality, consider, when you doubt about using the singular or the plural form of the Verb, which of the two ideas you wish to bring into prominence.

I have not travelled these twenty years.-Here we do not think of twenty years taken separately, but of a single period. The sense is singular, and we use the singular pronoun this.

These sort of people.-Here the word sort implies the existence of more persons than one, and therefore is taken as plural in sense.

§ 507. Sometimes the etymology is doubtful. The letters is the sign of the plural number. But certain singulars end in -s also. It is clear that those may be mistaken for plural. So high an authority as Pope writes

Riches, like insects, when concealed they lie,
Wait but for wings, and in their season fly.

Riches, however, which is neither more nor less than the French richesse, is a singular form. In like manner, alms is from the Anglo-Saxon almesse, wherein the -s is part of the original word, and no sign of number at all.

§ 508. As the habit of treating collectives as plurals interferes with the concord of number, the practice of personification traverses the rules for the concord of gender. We personify an object when we speak of inanimate things as if they were persons.

Gold, whose touch seductive leads to crime.

Death reaps his harvest.

Vice is the parent of misery.

The cities who aspire to liberty.

= =

§ 509. Ellipsis (from the Greek elleipein to fall short), or falling short, occurs in sentences like I sent to the bookseller's. Here shop or house is understood. Expressions like to go on all fours, and to eat of the fruit of the tree, are reducible to ellipses.

§ 510. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleonazein = to be in excess) occurs in expressions like the king, he reigns. In many pleonastic expressions we may suppose an interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as the king—he reigns; my banks—they are furnished.

§ 511. Zeugma.-They wear a dress like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves.-The verb, naturally applying to dress only, is here used to govern language. This is called, in Greek, zeugma (junction).

§ 512. My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed.-The sense of this is plain; he means my father. Yet no such substantive as father has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word pa

ternal. In other words, he is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure, in Greek, is called pros to semainomenon (according to the thing indicated).

All this, however, belongs to Rhetoric rather than to strict Syntax.

=

=

=

§ 513. In English, as has been seen, our Etymological forms are few. There were, for instance, but few Cases, and there was but little distinction of Gender. The Adjective was remarkably wanting in forms: yet it is a part of speech which, in many languages, has, at least, two Genders-often three. In French, for instance, we say le bon père = the good father; but la bonne mère the good mother; in Latin, bonus pater good father; bona mater good mother; bonum telum = good weapon. Meanwhile, the Plural runs boni patres, bonæ matres, bona tela. The Frenchman who said bon mère or bonne père might be accused of making a false Concord; inasmuch as he would join an Adjective in one Gender to a Substantive in another. No Englishman can possibly commit an error of this kind; because, in the word good there is no change at all, and, because, in English we say good father, good mother, good thing, good fathers, good mothers, good things indifferently. The same applies to the Articles. In French there are the forms un and unea (or an); along with le, la, les, meaning the. Meanwhile, the German says der, die, das, and einer, eine, eines, where the Englishman says simply the, and a (or an). Of course, then, the rules for the Syntax of the Articles must be simpler in English than in German.

§ 514. Convertibility.—On the other hand, English Syntax has certain decided peculiarities. In languages where each part of speech has its own peculiar and characteristic termination it is scarcely possible to confound a Substantive with a Verb or a Verb with a Substantive.

B B