instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and not a conjunction, both a preposition and not a preposition, "as the case may be!" It is true, that "one and the same word" may sometimes be differently parsed by different grammarians, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the expression itself is equivocal. "All fled but John," is thought to mean equally well, "All fled but he," and, "All fled but him;" while these latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore erroneous, is to be corrected, rather than parsed in any way. But I deny both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics profess to find among the said phrases. "John fled not, but all the rest fled," is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form, "All fled but him," it is told ungrammatically; in the other two, correctly.
OBS. 18.--In Latin, cum with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed to have, the force of the conjunction et with a nominative; as, "Dux cum aliquot principibus capiuntur."--LIVY: W. Allen's Gram., p. 131. In imitation of this construction, some English writers have substituted with for and, and varied the verb accordingly; as, "A long course of time, with a variety of accidents and circumstances, are requisite to produce those revolutions."--HUME: Allen's Gram., p. 131; Ware's, 12; Priestley's, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his proof text under the following observation: "It is not necessary that the two subjects of an affirmation should 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."--Æneid, 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 ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, "were" ought to be was. Secondly, if were be retained, "together with" ought to be changed to and, or and also. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, "The palace of Pizarro, as well as the houses of several of his adherents, was pillaged by the soldiers." Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: "And there appeared unto them Elias, with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus." If this text meant that the three disciples were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him;" and our version in Luke is, "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias."--Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the pronoun they, which our translators inserted, was meant for "Elias with Moses;" but the Greek verb for "appeared," as used by Mark, is singular, and agrees only with Elias. "[Greek: Kai ophthæ autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai hæsan syllalountes to Iæsoy.]"--"Et apparuit illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu."--Montanus. "Et visus est eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu."--Beza. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: "Et iis virent paroître Moyse et Elie, qui s'entretenoient avec Jésus." That is, "And there appeared to them Moses and Elias, who were talking with Jesus." Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, "And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and these two were talking with Jesus." There
