is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, "The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, who with his brethren and sons were twelve."--1 Chron., xxv, 9. Better: "and he, his brethren, and his sons, were twelve."
OBS. 20.--Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting with for and; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such "a sort of addition made to it." The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable example, "Sidmouth, with Oliver the spye, have brought Brandreth to the block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The Tyrant, with the Spy, have brought Peter to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, has or have. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use and, and not with? After some further illustrations, he says: "When with means along with, together with, in Company with, and the like, it is nearly the same as and; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with his brothers, are able to do much.' Not, 'is able to do much.' If the pronoun be used instead of brothers, it will be in the objective case: 'He, with them, are able to do much.' But this is no impediment to the including of the noun (represented by them) in the nominative." I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist! The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, do much;' and not 'does much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it does nothing. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain:"--1 Tim., vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its meaning? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?
OBS. 21.--There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a real one,) in which there is either an ellipsis of the preposition with, or else the verb is made singular because the first noun only is its true subject, and the others are explanatory nominatives to which the same verb must be understood in the plural number; as, "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."--ADDISON: in Johnson's Dict., w. All. "Down comes the tree, nest, eagles, and all."--See All, ibidem. Here goes and comes are necessarily made singular, the former agreeing with torch and the latter with tree; and, if the other nouns, which are like an explanatory parenthesis, are nominatives, as they appear to me to be, they must be subjects of go and come understood. Cobbett teaches us to say, "The bag, with the guineas and dollars in it, were stolen," and not, was stolen. "For," says he, "if we say was stolen, it is possible for us to mean, that the bag only was stolen,"--English Gram., ¶ 246. And I suppose he would say, "The bag, guineas, dollars, and all, were stolen," and not, "was stolen;" for here a rule of syntax might be urged, in addition to his false argument from the sense. But the meaning of the former sentence is, "The bag was stolen, with the guineas and dollars in it;" and the meaning of the latter is, "The bag was stolen, guineas, dollars, and all." Nor can there be any doubt about the meaning, place the words which way you will; and whatever, in either case, may be the true construction of the words in the parenthetical or explanatory phrase, they should not, I think, prevent the verb from agreeing with the first noun only. But if the other nouns intervene without affecting this concord, and without a preposition to govern them, it may be well to distinguish them in the punctuation; as, "The bag, (guineas, dollars, and all,) was stolen."
NOTES TO RULE XVI.
NOTE I.--When the conjunction and between two nominatives appears to require a plural verb, but such form of the verb is not agreeable, it is better to reject or change the connective, that the verb may stand correctly in the singular number; as, "There is a peculiar force and beauty in this figure."--Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 224. Better: "There is a peculiar force, as well as a peculiar beauty, in this figure." "What means this restless stir and commotion of mind?"--Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 242. Better: "What means this restless stir, this commotion of mind?"
NOTE II.--When two subjects or antecedents are connected, one of which is taken affirmatively, and the other negatively, they belong to different propositions; and the verb or pronoun must agree with the affirmative subject, and be understood to the other: as "Diligent industry, and not mean savings, produces honourable competence."--"Not a loud voice but strong proofs bring conviction."--"My poverty, but not my will, consents."--Shakespeare.
NOTE III.--When two subjects or antecedents are connected by as well as, but, or save, they belong to different propositions; and, (unless one of them is preceded
