ad of being amended, are
modelled to the grossest faults of what is worthless in our own?[329]

OBS. 16.--What arrangement of Latin or Greek syntax may be best in itself,
I am not now concerned to show. Lily did not divide his, as others have
divided the subject since; but first stated briefly his _three concords_,
and then proceeded to what he called _the construction_ of the several
parts of speech, taking them in their order. The three concords of Lily are
the following: (1.) Of the _Nominative and Verb_; to which the accusative
before an infinitive, and the collective noun with a plural verb, are
reckoned exceptions; while the agreement of a verb or pronoun with two or
more nouns, is referred to the figure _syllepsis_. (2.) Of the _Substantive
and Adjective_; under which the agreement of participles, and of some
pronouns, is placed in the form of a note. (3.) Of the _Relative and
Antecedent_; after which the two special rules for the _cases_ of relatives
are given as underparts. Dr. Adam divided his syntax into two parts; of
Simple Sentences, and of Compound Sentences. His three concords are the
following: (1.) Of one _Substantive with an Other_; which construction is
placed by Lily and many others among the figures of syntax, and is called
_apposition_. (2.) Of an _Adjective with a Substantive_; under which
principle, we are told to take adjective pronouns and participles. (3.) Of
a _Verb with a Nominative_; under which, the collective noun with a verb of
either number, is noticed in an observation. The construction of relatives,
of conjunctions, of comparatives, and of words put absolute, this author
reserves for the second part of his syntax; and the agreement of plural
verbs or pronouns with joint nominatives or antecedents, which Ruddiman
places in an observation on his _four concords_, is here absurdly reckoned
a part of the construction of conjunctions. Various divisions and
subdivisions of the Latin syntax, with special dispositions of some
particular principles of it, may be seen in the elaborate grammars of
Despauter, Prat, Ruddiman, Grant, and other writers. And here it may be
proper to observe, that, the mixing of syntax with etymology, after the
manner of Ingersoll, Kirkham, R. W. Green, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Felton,
Hazen, Parkhurst, Parker and Fox, Weld, and others, is a modern innovation,
pernicious to both; either topic being sufficiently comprehensive, and
sufficiently difficult, when they are treate