--must, to be grammatical! according to all the 'old theories,' stand, John has more fruit than that fruit is which, or which fruit can be gathered in a week!!!"--Ib., 331. What shall be done with the headlong critic who thus mistakes exclamation points for arguments, and multiplies his confidence in proportion to his fallacies and errors?
OBS. 19.--In a question, the nominative I or thou put after the verb, controls the agreement, in preference to the interrogative who, which, or what, put before it; as, "Who am I? What am I? Who art thou? What art thou?" And, by analogy, this seems to be the case with all plurals; as, "Who are we? Who are you? Who are they? What are these?" But sometimes the interrogative pronoun is the only nominative used; and then the verb, whether singular or plural, must agree with this nominative, in the third person, and not, as Cobbett avers, with an antecedent understood: as, "Who is in the house? Who are in the house? Who strikes the iron? Who strike the iron? Who was in the street? Who were in the street?"--Cobbett's Gram., ¶ 245. All the interrogative pronouns may be used in either number, but, in examples like the following, I imagine the singular to be more proper than the plural: "What have become of our previous customs?"--Hunt's Byron, p. 121. "And what have become of my resolutions to return to God?"--Young Christian, 2d Ed., p. 91. When two nominatives of different properties come after the verb, the first controls the agreement, and neither the plural number nor the most worthy person is always preferred; as, "Is it I? Is it thou? Is it they?"
OBS. 20.--The verb after a relative sometimes has the appearance of disagreeing with its nominative, because the writer and his reader disagree in their conceptions of its mood. When a relative clause is subjoined to what is itself subjunctive or conditional, some writers suppose that the latter verb should be put in the subjunctive mood; as, "If there be any intrigue which stand separate and independent."--Blair's Rhet., p. 457. "The man also would be of considerable use, who should vigilantly attend to every illegal practice that were beginning to prevail."--Campbell's Rhet., p. 171. But I have elsewhere shown, that relatives, in English, are not compatible with the subjunctive mood; and it is certain, that no other mood than the indicative or the potential is commonly used after them. Say therefore, "If there be any intrigue which stands," &c. In assuming to himself the other text, Murray's says, "That man also would be of considerable use, who should vigilantly attend to every illegal practice that was beginning to prevail."--Octavo Gram., p. 366. But this seems too positive. The potential imperfect would be better: viz., "that might begin to prevail."
OBS. 21.--The termination st or est, with which the second person singular of the verb is formed in the indicative present, and, for the solemn style, in the imperfect also; and the termination s or es, with which the third person singular is formed in the indicative present, and only there; are signs of the mood and tense, as well as of the person and number, of the verb. They are not applicable to a future uncertainty, or to any mere supposition in which we would leave the time indefinite and make the action hypothetical; because they are commonly understood to fix the time of the verb to the present or the past, and to assume the action as either doing or done. For this reason, our best writers have always omitted those terminations, when they intended to represent the action as being doubtful and contingent as well as conditional. And this omission constitutes the whole formal difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood. The essential difference has, by almost all grammarians, been conceived to extend somewhat further; for, if it were confined strictly within the limits of the literal variation, the subjunctive mood would embrace only two or three words in the whole formation of each verb. After the example of Priestley, Dr. Murray, A. Murray, Harrison, Alexander, and others, I have given to it all the persons of the two simple tenses, singular and plural; and, for various reasons, I am decidedly of the opinion, that these are its most proper limits. The perfect and pluperfect tenses, being past, cannot express what is really contingent or uncertain; and since, in expressing conditionally what may or may not happen, we use the subjunctive present as embracing the future indefinitely, there is no need of any formal futures for this mood. The comprehensive brevity of this form of the verb, is what chiefly commends it. It is not an elliptical form of the future, as some affirm it to be; nor equivalent to the indicative present, as others will have it; but a true subjunctive, though its distinctive parts are chiefly confined to the second and third persons singular of the simple verb: as, "Though thou wash thee with nitre."--Jer., ii, 22. "It is just, O great king! that a murderer perish."--Corneille. "This single crime, in my judgment, were sufficient to condemn him."--Duncan's Cicero, p. 82. "Beware that thou bring not my son thither."--BIBLE: Ward's Gram., p. 128. "See [that] thou tell no man."--Id., ib. These examples can hardly be resolved into any thing else than the subjunctive mood.
NOTES TO RULE XIV.
NOTE I.--When the nominative is a relative pronoun, the verb must agree with it in person and number, according to the pronoun's agreement with its true antecedent or antecedents. Example of error: "The second book [of the Æneid] is one of the greatest masterpieces that ever was executed by any hand."--Blair's Rhet., p. 439. Here the true antecedent is masterpieces, and not the word one; but was executed is singular, and "by any hand" implies but one agent. Either say, "It is one of the greatest masterpieces that ever were executed;" or else, "It is the
