FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1211   1212   1213   1214   1215   1216   1217   1218   1219   1220   1221   1222   1223   1224   1225   1226   1227   1228   1229   1230   1231   1232   1233   1234   1235  
1236   1237   1238   1239   1240   1241   1242   1243   1244   1245   1246   1247   1248   1249   1250   1251   1252   1253   1254   1255   1256   1257   1258   1259   1260   >>   >|  
stand in the very same construction, to require the verb to be in the plural number. If one of them be made to depend upon the other _by a connecting particle_, it may, _in some cases_, have the same force, as if it were independent of it."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 186. Lindley Murray, on the contrary, condemns this doctrine, and after citing the same example with others, says: "It is however, proper to observe that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by _the just principles_ of construction."-- _Octavo Gram._, p. 150. He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it. All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it. And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek. They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought. Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus assumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty. OBS. 19.--Dr. Adam simply remarks, "The plural is sometimes used after the preposition _cum_ put for _et_; as, _Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt_. Virg."--_Latin and English Gram._, p. 207; _Gould's Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 204; _W. Allen's English Gram._, 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better. Alexander has it in a worse form still: "Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt."--_Latin Gram._, p. 47. Virgil's words are, "_Cana_ FIDES, _et_ VESTA, _Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt_."--_AEneid_, B. i, l. 296. Nor is _cum_ here "put for _et_," unless we suppose also an antiptosis of _Remo fratre_ for _Remus frater_; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they _correct_ in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: "The palace of Pizarro, _together with_ the houses of several of his adherents, _were_ pillaged by the soldiers."-- _Hist. of Amer._, Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungra
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1211   1212   1213   1214   1215   1216   1217   1218   1219   1220   1221   1222   1223   1224   1225   1226   1227   1228   1229   1230   1231   1232   1233   1234   1235  
1236   1237   1238   1239   1240   1241   1242   1243   1244   1245   1246   1247   1248   1249   1250   1251   1252   1253   1254   1255   1256   1257   1258   1259   1260   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

fratre

 

Quirinus

 

syntax

 

preposition

 

construction

 
dabunt
 

English

 

plural

 

Virgil

 
simply

remarks

 

perversion

 
adopted
 

fairly

 

Alexander

 

Pizarro

 

palace

 

houses

 

Robertson

 
authors

languages

 

question

 

correct

 

adherents

 

pillaged

 

appears

 

plainly

 
soldiers
 

suppose

 

antiptosis


faulty

 

frater

 

examples

 

adduced

 
accommodated
 

literal

 

meaning

 

AEneid

 
errors
 
expression

warranted

 

proper

 

observe

 

principles

 

Octavo

 

objective

 

ablative

 
governed
 

governs

 

alleging