CHAPTER XV.

ON VERBS IN GENERAL.

§ 489. For the purposes of syntax, it is necessary to divide verbs into the five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive, and impersonal.

Transitive verbs.-In transitive verbs the action is never a simple action. It always affects some object or other,—I move my limbs; I strike my enemy. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood, is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself, makes it intransitive. I move means, simply, I am in a state of moving. I strike means, simply, I am in the act of striking. Verbs like move and strike are naturally transitive.

Intransitive verbs.—An act may take place, and yet no object be affected by it. To hunger, to thirst, to sleep, to wake, are verbs that indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs like hunger, and sleep, are naturally intransitive.

Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,-e. g. I move, I strike, &c.

Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,- -e. g. I walked the horse I made the horse walk. This variation in the use of one and the same verb is of much importance in the question of the government of verbs.

1. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that noun is always the name of something affected by them as an object.

2. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun

VOL. II.

BB

at all; and when they are so followed, the noun is never the name of anything affected by them as an object.

Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action, -I walk with my feet = incedo pedibus.

The verb substantive has this peculiarity, viz. that for all purposes of syntax it is no verb at all. I speak may, logically, be reduced to I am speaking; in which case it is only the part of a verb. Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula only, i. e. it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the subject and the predicate.

This does not apply to the infinitive mood. The infinitive mood of the so-called verb substantive is a noun; not, however, because it is a verb substantive, but because it is an infinitive mood.

The auxiliary and impersonal verbs will be considered separately.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE CONCORD OF VERBS.

§ 490. THE verb must agree with its subject in person,— I walk, not I walks; he walks, not he walk.

It must also agree with it in number,-we walk, not we walks; he walks, not he walk.

Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb.

1. It is I, your master, who command you. Query? would it is I, your master, who commands you, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.

2. The wages of sin is death. Query? would the wages of sin are death, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb.

§ 491. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry us through a portion of the difficulties.

Rule. In sentences, where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,-I, your master, command you (not commands): your master, I, commands you (not command).

at

To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is necessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, one and the same time, a noun-substantive and a pronoun,I, the keeper; he, the merchant, &c.

Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person —John speaks, the men run, the commander gives orders. Consequently the verb is of the third person also.

But the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second: I or thou-I the commander-thou the commander.—In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which requires a first or second?

Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb.

illustrate this from the analogy of a similar construction in respect to number—a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression I, your master, the ideas are two; viz. the idea expressed by I, and the idea expressed by master. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single. Your master, I, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning the master, and it is intended to say what he does. The word I merely defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both.

From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute.

Rule. In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first.

But the expression it is I, your master, who command (or commands) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions.

1. It is I.

2. Who commands you.

Here, the word master is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, i. e. the whole sentence may be divided into—

Either-it is I your master

Or-your master who commands you.

This is the first point to observe. The next is, that the verb in the second clause (command or commands) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i. e. in the particular case before us, not by either I or master, but by who.

And this brings us to the following question:—with which of the two antecedents does the relative agree? with I or with master?

This may be answered by the two following rules:

Rule 1.-When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus—

1. It is I your master—

2. Who command you.

Rule 2.-When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second.

1. It is I

Thus

2. Your master who commands you.

This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called the distribution of the substantive antecedent will bear criticism.

Rule 1. That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word master is logically connected with the word command; and this fact makes the expression, It is I your master who commands you, the better of the two.

Rule 2. That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the rela