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
|