is.' The sentences should stand thus--'Neither of us is concerned,' or, 'neither are you concerned, nor am I.' 'Either he was there, or thou wast.' 'Either they are faulty, or he is. They are, however, in all their impropriety, writen [sic--KTH] according to the principles of Goold Brown's grammar! and the theories of most of the former writers."--Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 252. We shall see by-and-by who is right.
OBS. 6.--Cobbett also--while he approves of such English as, "He, with them, are able to do much," for, "He and they are able to do much"--condemns expressly every possible example in which the verb has not a full and explicit concord with each of its nominatives, if they are connected by or or nor. His doctrine is this: "If nominatives of different numbers present themselves, we must not give them a verb which disagrees with either the one or the other. We must not say: 'Neither the halter nor the bayonets are sufficient to prevent us from obtaining our rights.' We must avoid this bad grammar by using a different form of words: as, 'We are to be prevented from obtaining our rights by neither the halter nor the bayonets.' And, why should we wish to write bad grammar, if we can express our meaning in good grammar?"--Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 242. This question would have more force, if the correction here offered did not convey a meaning widely different from that of the sentence corrected. But he goes on: "We cannot say, 'They or I am in fault; I, or they, or he, is the author of it; George or I am the person.' Mr. Lindley Murray says, that we may use these phrases; and that we have only to take care that the verb agree with that person which is placed nearest to it; but, he says also, that it would be better to avoid such phrases by giving a different turn to our words. I do not like to leave any thing to chance or to discretion, when we have a clear principle for our guide."--Ib., ¶ 243. This author's "clear principle" is merely his own confident assumption, that every form of figurative or implied agreement, every thing which the old grammarians denominated zeugma, is at once to be condemned as a solecism. He is however supported by an other late writer of much greater merit. See Churchill's New Gram., pp. 142 and 312.
OBS. 7.--If, in lieu of their fictitious examples, our grammarians would give us actual quotations from reputable authors, their instructions would doubtless gain something in accuracy, and still more in authority. "I or they were offended by it," and, "I, or thou, or he, is the author of it," are expressions that I shall not defend. They imply an egotistical speaker, who either does not know, or will not tell, whether he is offended or not,--whether he is the author or not! Again, there are expressions that are unobjectionable, and yet not conformable to any of the rules just quoted. That nominatives may be correctly connected by or or nor without an express agreement of the verb with each of them, is a point which can be proved to as full certainty as almost any other in grammar; Churchill, Cobbett, and Peirce to the contrary notwithstanding. But with which of the nominatives the verb shall expressly agree, or to which of them it may most properly be understood, is a matter not easy to be settled by any sure general rule. Nor is the lack of such a rule a very important defect, though the inculcation of a false or imperfect one may be. So judged at least the ancient grammarians, who noticed and named almost every possible form of the zeugma, without censuring any as being ungrammatical. In the Institutes of English Grammar, I noted first the usual form of this concord, and then the allowable exceptions; but a few late writers, we see, denounce every form of it, exceptions and all: and, standing alone in their notions of the figure, value their own authority more than that of all other critics together.
OBS. 8.--In English, as in other languages, when a verb has discordant nominatives connected disjunctively, it most commonly agrees expressly with that which is nearest, and only by implication, with the more remote; as, "When some word or words are dependent on the attribute."--Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 153. "To the first of these qualities, dulness or refinements are dangerous enemies."--Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 15. "He hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or both are very honorably murdered."--Webster's Essays, p. 235. "The consequence is, that they frown upon everyone whose faults or negligence interrupts or retards their lessons."--W. C. Woodbridge: Lit. Conv., p. 114. "Good intentions, or at least sincerity of purpose, was never denied her."--West's Letters, p. 43. "Yet this proves not that either he or we judge them to be the rule."--Barclay's Works, i, 157. "First clear yourselves of popery before you or thou dost throw it upon us."--Ib., i, 169. "Is the gospel or glad tidings of this salvation brought nigh unto all?"--Ib., i, 362. "Being persuaded, that either they, or their cause, is naught."--Ib., i, 504. "And the reader may judge whether he or I do most fully acknowledge man's fall."--Ib., iii, 332. "To do justice to the Ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one, or any two, of the three Estates, have power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third."--Junius, Letter xvii. "The forest, or hunting-grounds, are deemed the property of the tribe."--Robertson's America, i, 313. "Birth or titles confer no preëminence."--Ib., ii, 184. "Neither tobacco nor hides were imported from Caraccas into Spain."--Ib., ii, 507. "The keys or seed-vessel of the maple has two large side-wings."--The Friend, vii, 97. "An example or two are sufficient to illustrate the general observation."--Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., i, 58.
"Not thou, nor those thy factious arts engage, Shall reap that harvest of rebellious rage."--Dryden, p. 60.
OBS. 9.--But when the remoter nominative is the principal word, and the nearer one is expressed parenthetically, the verb agrees literally with the former, and only by implication, with the latter; as, "One example, (or ten,) says nothing against it."--Leigh Hunt. "And we, (or future ages,) may possibly have a proof of it."--Bp. Butler. So, when the alternative is merely in the words, not in the thought, the former term is sometimes considered the principal one, and
