The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 700Footnotes: (12)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
[370] Cowper here purposely makes Mrs. Gilpin use bad English; but this is no reason why a school-boy may not be taught to correct it. Dr. Priestley supposed that the word we, in the example, "To poor we, thine enmity," &c., was also used by Shakespeare, "in a droll humorous way."—Gram., p. 103. He surely did not know the connexion of the text. It is in "Volumnia's pathetic speech" to her victorious son. See Coriolanus, Act V, Sc. 3.
[371] Dr. Enfield misunderstood this passage; and, in copying it into his Speaker, (a very popular school-book,) he has perverted the text, by changing we to us: as if the meaning were, "Making us fools of nature." But it is plain, that all "fool's of nature!" must be fools of nature's own making, and not persons temporarily frighted out of their wits by a ghost; nor does the meaning of the last two lines comport with any objective construction of this pronoun. See Enfield's Speaker, p. 864.
[372] In Clark's Practical Grammar, of 1848, is found this NOTE: "The Noun should correspond in number with the Adjectives. EXAMPLES—A two feet ruler. A ten feet pole."—P. 165. These examples are wrong: the doctrine is misapplied in both. With this author, a, as well as two or ten, is an adjective of number; and, since these differ in number, what sort of concord or construction do the four words in each of these phrases make? When a numeral and a noun are united to form a compound adjective, we commonly, if not always, use the latter in its primitive or singular form: as, "A twopenny toy,"—"a twofold error,"—"three-coat plastering," say, "a twofoot rule,"—"a tenfoot pole;" which phrases are right; while Clark's are not only unusual, but unanalogical, ungrammatical.
[373] Certain adjectives that differ in number, are sometimes connected disjunctively by or or than, while the noun literally agrees with that which immediately precedes it, and with the other merely by implication or supplement, under the figure which is called zeugma: as, "Two or more nouns joined together by one or more copulative conjunctions."— Lowth's Gram., p. 75; L. Murray's, 2d Ed., p. 106. "He speaks not to one or a few judges, but to a large assembly."—Blair's Rhet., p. 280. "More than one object at a time."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 301. See Obs. 10th on Rule 17th.
[374] Double comparatives and double superlatives, such as, "The more serener spirit,"—"The most straitest sect,"—are noticed by Latham and Child, in their syntax, as expressions which "we occasionally find, even in good writers," and are truly stated to be "pleonastic;" but, forbearing to censure them as errors, these critics seem rather to justify them as pleonasms allowable. Their indecisive remarks are at fault, not only because they are indecisive, but because they are both liable and likely to mislead the learner.—See their Elementary Grammar, p. 155.
[375] The learned William B. Fowle strangely imagines all pronouns to be adjectives, belonging to nouns expressed or understood after them; as, "We kings require them (subjects) to obey us (kings)."—The True English Gram., p. 21. "They grammarians, [i. e.] those grammarians. They is an other spelling of the, and of course means this, that, these, those, as the case may be."—Ibid. According to him, then, "them grammarians," for "those grammarians," is perfectly good English; and so is "they grammarians," though the vulgar do not take care to vary this adjective, "as the case may be." His notion of subjoining a noun to every pronoun, is a fit counterpart to that of some other grammarians, who imagine an ellipsis of a pronoun after almost every noun. Thus: "The personal Relatives, for the most part, are suppressed when the Noun is expressed: as, Man (he) is the Lord of this lower world. Woman (she) is the fairest Part of the Creation. The Palace (it) stands on a Hill. Men and Women (they) are rational Creatures."—British Gram., p. 234; Buchanan's, 131. It would have been worth a great deal to some men, to have known what an Ellipsis is; and the man who shall yet make such knowledge common, ought to be forever honoured in the schools.
[376] "An illegitimate and ungrammatical use of these words, either and neither, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, 'Twenty ruffians broke into the house, but neither of them could be recognized.' 'Here are fifty pens, you will find that either of them will do.'"—MATT. HARRISON, on the English Language, p. 199. "Either and neither, applied to any number more than one of two objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction."—Ib., p. 200. Say, "Either OR neither," &c.—G. B.
[377] Dr. Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word whole is an "attribute of unity," and therefore improperly added to a plural noun. But, in fact, this adjective is not necessarily singular, nor is all necessarily plural. Yet there is a difference between the words: whole is equivalent to all only when the noun is singular; for then only do entireness and totality coincide. A man may say, "the whole thing," when he means, "all the thing;" but he must not call all things, whole things. In the following example, all is put for whole, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: "Which doth encompass and embrace the all of things."—The Dial, Vol. i, p. 59.
[378] This is not a mere repetition of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted. Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way.—G. BROWN.
[379] Some authors erroneously say, "A personal pronoun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, I will do it.'"—Goodenow's Gram. "When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the third person, but the pronoun you is of the second; yet you stands for children,"—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 54. Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circumstance. It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's pronouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters. The pronoun I does not here stand for the noun John which is of the third person; it is John's own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning is, "I myself, John, of the first person, will do it." Nor does you stand for children as spoken of by Ingersoll; but for children of the second person, uttered or implied in the address of his messenger: as, "Children, you must come in."
[380] The propriety of this construction is questionable. See Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.
[381] Among the authors who have committed this great fault, are, Alden, W. Allen, D. C. Allen, C. Adams, the author of the British Grammar, Buchanan, Cooper, Cutler, Davis, Dilworth, Felton, Fisher, Fowler, Frazee, Goldsbury, Hallock, Hull, M'Culloch, Morley, Pinneo, J. Putnam, Russell, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Spencer, Weld, Wells, Webster, and White. "You is plural, whether it refer to only one individual, or to more."—Dr. Crombie, on Etym. and Synt., p. 240. "The word you, even when applied to one person, is plural, and should never he connected with a singular verb."—Alexander's Gram., p. 53; Emmons's, 26. "You is of the Plural Number, even though used as the Name of a single Person."—W. Ward's Gram., p. 88. "Altho' the Second Person Singular in both Times be marked with thou, to distinguish it from the Plural, yet we, out of Complaisance, though we speak but to one particular Person, use the Plural you, and never thou, but when we address ourselves to Almighty God, or when we speak in an emphatical Manner, or make a distinct and particular Application to a Person."—British Gram., p. 126; Buchanan's, 37. "But you, tho' applied to a single Person, requires a Plural Verb, the same as ye; as, you love, not you lovest or loves; you were, not you was or wast."—Buchanan's Gram., p. 37.
[382] "Mr. Murray's 6th Rule is unnecessary."—Lennie's English Gram., p. 81; Bullions's, p. 90. The two rules of which I speak, constitute Murray's Rule VI; Alger's and Bacon's Rule VI; Merchant's Rule IX; Ingersoll's Rule XII; Kirkham's Rules XV and XVI; Jaudon's XXI and XXII; Crombie's X and XI; Nixon's Obs. 86th and 87th: and are found in Lowth's Gram., p. 100; Churchill's, 136; Adam's, 203; W. Allen's, 156; Blair's, 75; and many other books.
[383] This rule, in all its parts, is to be applied chiefly, if not solely, to such relative clauses as are taken in the restrictive sense; for, in the resumptive sense of the relative, who or which may be more proper than that: as, "Abraham solemnly adjures his most faithful servant, whom he despatches to Charran on this matrimonial mission for his son, to discharge his mission with all fidelity."—Milman's Jews, i, 21. See Etymology, Chap. 5th, Obs. 23d, 24th, &c., on the Classes of Pronouns.
[384] Murray imagined this sentence to be bad English. He very strangely mistook the pronoun he for the object of the preposition with; and accordingly condemned the text, under the rule, "Prepositions govern the objective case." So of the following: "It is not I he is engaged with."—Murray's Exercises, R. 17. Better: "It is not I that he is engaged with." Here is no violation of the foregoing rule, or of any other; and both sentences, with even Murray's form of the latter, are quite as good as his proposed substitutes: "It was not with him, that they were so angry."—Murray's Key, p. 51. "It is not with me he is engaged."—Ib. In these fancied corrections, the phrases with him and with me have a very awkward and questionable position: it seems doubtful, whether they depend on was and is, or on angry and engaged.
[385] In their speculations on the personal pronouns, grammarians sometimes contrive, by a sort of abstraction, to reduce all the persons to the third; that is, the author or speaker puts I, not for himself in particular, but for any one who utters the word, and thou, not for his particular hearer or reader, but for any one who is addressed; and, conceiving of these as persons merely spoken of by himself, he puts the verb in the third person, and not in the first or second: as, "I is the speaker, thou [is] the hearer, and he, she, or it, is the person or thing spoken of. All denote qualities of existence, but such qualities as make different impressions on the mind. I is the being of consciousness, thou [is the being] of perception, and he of memory."—Booth's Introd., p. 44. This is such syntax as I should not choose to imitate; nor is it very proper to say, that the three persons in grammar "denote qualities of existence." But, supposing the phraseology to be correct, it is no real exception to the foregoing rule of concord; for I and thou are here made to be pronouns of the third person. So in the following example, which I take to be bad English: "I, or the person who speaks, is the first person; you, is the second; he, she, or it, is the third person singular."—Bartlett's Manual, Part ii, p. 70. Again, in the following; which is perhaps a little better: "The person 'I' is spoken of as acted upon."—Bullions, Prin. of E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 29. But there is a manifest absurdity in saying, with this learned "Professor of Languages," that the pronouns of the different persons are those persons: as, "I is the first person, and denotes the speaker. Thou is the second, and denotes the person spoken to."—Ib., p. 22.
[386] (1.) Concerning the verb need, Dr. Webster has the following note: "In the use of this verb there is another irregularity, which is peculiar, the verb being without a nominative, expressed or implied. 'Whereof here needs no account.'—Milt., P. L., 4. 235. There is no evidence of the fact, and there needs none. This is an established use of need."—Philos. Gram., p. 178; Improved Gram., 127; Greenleaf's Gram. Simp., p. 38; Fowler's E. Gram., p. 537. "Established use?" To be sure, it is "an established use;" but the learned Doctor's comment is a most unconscionable blunder,—a pedantic violation of a sure principle of Universal Grammar,—a perversion worthy only of the veriest ignoramus. Yet Greenleaf profitably publishes it, with other plagiarisms, for "Grammar Simplified!" Now the verb "needs," like the Latin eget, signifying is necessary, is here not active, but neuter; and has the nominative set after it, as any verb must, when the adverb there or here is before it. The verbs lack and want may have the same construction, and can have no other, when the word there, and not a nominative, precedes them; as, "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous."—Gen., xviii, 28. There is therefore neither "irregularity," nor any thing "peculiar," in thus placing the verb and its nominative.
(2.) Yet have we other grammarians, who, with astonishing facility, have allowed themselves to be misled, and whose books are now misleading the schools, in regard to this very simple matter. Thus Wells: "The transitive verbs need and want, are sometimes employed in a general sense, without a nominative, expressed or implied. Examples:—'There needed a new dispensation.'—Caleb Cushing. 'There needs no better picture.'—Irving. 'There wanted not patrons to stand up.'—Sparks. 'Nor did there want Cornice, or frieze.'—Milton."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 141: 113th Ed., p. 154. In my edition of Milton, the text is, "Nor did they want Cornice or frieze."—P. L., B. i, l. 715, 716. This reading makes want a "transitive" verb, but the other makes it neuter, with the nominative following it. Again, thus Weld: "A verb in the imperative mode, and the transitive verbs need, want, and require, sometimes appear to be used indefinitely, without a nominative; as, let there be light; There required haste in the business; There needs no argument for proving, &c. There wanted not men who would, &c. The last expressions have an active form with a passive sense, and should perhaps rather be considered elliptical than wanting a nominative; as, haste is required, no argument is needed, &c."—Weld's English Grammar Illustrated, p. 143. Is there anywhere, in print, viler pedantry than this? The only elliptical example, "Let there be light,"—a kind of sentence from which the nominative is usually suppressed,—is here absurdly represented as being full, yet without a subject for its verb; while other examples, which are full, and in which the nominative must follow the verb, because the adverb "there" precedes, are first denied to have nominatives, and then most bunglingly tortured with false ellipses, to prove that they have them!
(3.) The idea of a command wherein no person or thing is commanded, seems to have originated with Webster, by whom it has been taught, since 1807, as follows: "In some cases, the imperative verb is used without a definite nominative."—Philos. Gram., p. 141; Imp. Gram., 86; Rudiments, 69. See the same words in Frazee's Gram., p. 133. Wells has something similar: "A verb in the imperative is sometimes used absolutely, having no direct reference to any particular subject expressed or implied; as, 'And God said, Let there be light.'"—School Gram., p. 141. But, when this command was uttered to the dark waves of primeval chaos, it must have meant, "Do ye let light be there." What else could it mean? There may frequently be difficulty in determining what or who is addressed by the imperative let, but there seems to be more in affirming that it has no subject. Nutting, puzzled with this word, makes the following dubious and unsatisfactory suggestion: "Perhaps it may be, in many cases, equivalent to may; or it may be termed itself an imperative mode impersonal; that is, containing a command or an entreaty addressed to no particular person."—Nutting's Practical Gram., p. 47.
(4.) These several errors, about the "Imperative used Absolutely," with "no subject addressed," as in "Let there be light," and the Indicative "verbs NEED and WANT, employed without a nominative, either expressed or implied," are again carefully reiterated by the learned Professor Fowler, in his great text-book of philology "in its Elements and Forms,"—called, rather extravagantly, an "English Grammar." See, in his edition of 1850, §597, Note 3 and Note 7; also §520, Note 2. Wells's authorities for "Imperatives Absolute," are, "Frazee, Allen and Cornwell, Nutting, Lynde, and Chapin;" and, with reference to "NEED and WANT," he says, "See Webster, Perley, and Ingersoll."—School Gram., 1850, §209.
(5.) But, in obvious absurdity most strangely overlooked by the writer, all these blunderers are outdone by a later one, who says: "Need and dare are sometimes used in a general sense without a nominative: as, 'There needed no prophet to tell us that;' 'There wanted no advocates to secure the voice of the people.' It is better, however, to supply it, as a nominative, than admit an anomala. Sometimes, when intransitive, they have the plural form with a singular noun: as, 'He need not fear;' 'He dare not hurt you.'"—Rev. H. W. Bailey's E. Gram., 1854, p. 128. The last example—"He dare"—is bad English: dare should be dares. "He need not fear," if admitted to be right, is of the potential mood; in which no verb is inflected in the third person. "He," too, is not a "noun;" nor can it ever rightly have a "plural" verb. "To supply it, as a nominative," where the verb is declared to be "without a nominative," and to make "wanted" an example of "dare" are blunders precisely worthy of an author who knows not how to spell anomaly!
[387] This interpretation, and others like it, are given not only by Murray, but by many other grammarians, one of whom at least was earlier than he. See Bicknell's Gram., Part i, p. 123; Ingersoll's, 153; Guy's, 91; Alger's, 73; Merchant's, 100; Picket's, 211; Fisk's, 146; D. Adams's, 81; R. C. Smith's, 182.
[388] The same may be said of Dr. Webster's "nominative sentences;" three fourths of which are nothing but phrases that include a nominative with which the following verb agrees. And who does not know, that to call the adjuncts of any thing "an essential part of it," is a flat absurdity? An adjunct is "something added to another, but not essentially a part of it."—Webster's Dict. But, says the Doctor, "Attributes and other words often make an essential part of the nominative; [as,] 'Our IDEAS of eternity CAN BE nothing but an infinite succession of moments of duration.'—LOCKE. 'A wise SON MAKETH a glad father; but a foolish SON IS the heaviness of his mother.' Abstract the name from its attribute, and the proposition cannot always be true. 'HE that gathereth in summer is a wise son.' Take away the description, 'that gathereth in summer,' and the affirmation ceases to be true, or becomes inapplicable. These sentences or clauses thus constituting the subject of an affirmation, may be termed nominative sentences."—Improved Gram., p. 95. This teaching reminds me of the Doctor's own exclamation: "What strange work has been made with Grammar!"—Ib., p. 94; Philos. Gram., 138. In Nesbit's English Parsing, a book designed mainly for "a Key to Murray's Exercises in Parsing," the following example is thus expounded: "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, [and] the mild zephyr, are the proper emblems of a gentle temper, and a peaceful life."—Murray's Exercises, p. 8. "The smooth stream, the serene atmosphere, the mild zephyr, is part of a sentence, which is the nominative case to the verb 'are.' Are is an irregular verb neuter, in the indicative mood, the present tense, the third person plural, and agrees with the aforementioned part of a sentence, as its nominative case."—Introduction to English Parsing, p. 137. On this principle of analysis, all the rules that speak of the nominatives or antecedents connected by conjunctions, may be dispensed with, as useless; and the doctrine, that a verb which has a phrase or sentence for its subject, must be singular, is palpably contradicted, and supposed erroneous!
[389] "No Relative can become a Nominative to a Verb."—Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar, p. 162. "A personal pronoun becomes a nominative, though a relative does not."—Ib., p. 152. This teacher is criticised by the other as follows: "Wright says that 'Personal pronouns may be in the nominative case,' and that 'relative pronouns can not be. Yet he declines his relatives thus: 'Nominative case, who; possessive, whose; objective, whom!"—Oliver B. Peirce's Grammar, p. 331. This latter author here sees the palpable inconsistency of the former, and accordingly treats who, which, what, whatever, &c., as relative pronouns of the nominative case—or, as he calls them, "connective substitutes in the subjective form;" but when what or whatever precedes its noun, or when as is preferred to who or which, he refers both verbs to the noun itself, and adopts the very principle by which Cobbet and Wright erroneously parse the verbs which belong to the relatives, who, which, and that: as, "Whatever man will adhere to strict principles of honesty, will find his reward in himself."—Peirce's Gram., p. 55. Here Peirce considers whatever to be a mere adjective, and man the subject of will adhere and will find. "Such persons as write grammar, should themselves be grammarians."—Ib., p. 330. Here he declares as to be no pronoun, but "a modifying connective," i.e., conjunction; and supposes persons to be the direct subject of write as well as of should be: as if a conjunction could connect a verb and its nominative!
[390] Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus: "Your master, I, commands you (not command)."—Ib. But this I take to be bad English. It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, may be changed in person, by being set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second. But even if terms so used do not assimilate in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above. It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place. The following study-bred example of the Doctor's, is also awkward and ungrammatical: "I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry."—Hand-Book, p. 334.
[391] Professor Fowler says, "One when contrasted with other, sometimes represents plural nouns; as, 'The reason why the one are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the other for bare powers, seems to be.'—LOCKE.", Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, p. 242. This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective. For, if one may be plural, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number. "One" and "other" are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun class or species, understood, which should have been expressed after the former. See Etym., Obs. 19, p. 276.
[392] Dr. Priestley says, "It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh: [as,] Minced pies was regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries. Hume's Hist. A great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it. Ib. By this term was understood, such persons as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world."—English Gram. with Notes, p. 189. The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be bad English, or at least harsh in their construction. And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule: it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb. Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume's "viand" cannot possibly be taken "as the subject of the affirmation." Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley's note, (all but the first line and the last,) rejects these two examples, substituting for the former, "His meat was locusts and wild honey," and for the latter, "The wages of sin is death." He very evidently supposes all three of his examples to be good English. In this, according to Churchill, he is at fault in two instances out of the three; and still more so, in regard to the note, or rule, itself. In stead of being "a rule in all grammars," it is (so far as I know) found only in these authors, and such as have implicitly copied it from Murray. Among these last, are Alger, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Fisk, and Merchant. Churchill, who cites it only as Murray's, and yet expends two pages of criticism upon it, very justly says: "To make that the nominative case, [or subject of the affirmation,] which happens to stand nearest to the verb, appears to me to be on a par with the blunder pointed out in note 204th;" [that is, of making the verb agree with an objective case which happens to stand nearer to it, than its subject, or nominative.]— Churchill's New Gram., p. 313.
[393] "If the excellence of Dryden's works was lessened by his indigence, their number was increased."—Dr. Johnson. This is an example of the proper and necessary use of the indicative mood after an if, the matter of the condition being regarded as a fact. But Dr. Webster, who prefers the indicative too often, has the following note upon it: "If Johnson had followed the common grammars, or even his own, which is prefixed to his Dictionary, he would have written were—'If the excellence of Dryden's works were lessened'—Fortunately this great man, led by usage rather than by books, wrote correct English, instead of grammar."— Philosophical Gram., p. 238. Now this is as absurd, as it is characteristic of the grammar from which it is taken. Each form is right sometimes, and neither can be used for the other, without error.
[394] Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the solecisms adopted by himself and others, about "unity of idea" and "plurality of idea," in stead of condemning the things intended to be spoken of, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 738, under the head of Absurdities.
[395] In his English Reader, (Part II, Chap. 5th, Sec. 7th,) Murray has this line in its proper form, as it here stands in the words of Thomson; but, in his Grammar, he corrupted it, first in his Exercises, and then still more in his Key. Among his examples of "False Syntax" it stands thus:
"What black despair, what horror, fills his mind!" —Exercises, Rule 2.
So the error is propagated in the name of Learning, and this verse goes from grammar to grammar, as one that must have a "plural" verb. See Ingersoll's Gram., p. 242; Smith's New Gram., p. 127; Fisk's Gram., p. 120; Weld's E. Gram., 2d Ed., p. 189; Imp. Ed., p. 196.
[396] S. W. Clark, by reckoning "as" a "preposition," perverts the construction of sentences like this, and inserts a wrong case after the conjunction. See Clark's Practical Grammar, pp. 92 and 178; also this Syntax, Obs. 6 and Obs. 18, on Conjunctions.
[397] Murray gives us the following text for false grammar, under the head of Strength: "And Elias with Moses appeared to them."—Exercises, 8vo, p. 135. This he corrects thus: "And there appeared to them Elias with Moses."—Key, 8vo, p. 266. He omits the comma after Elias, which some copies of the Bible contain, and others do not. Whether he supposed the verb appeared to be singular or plural, I cannot tell; and he did not extend his quotation to the pronoun they, which immediately follows, and in which alone the incongruity lies.
[398] This order of the persons, is not universally maintained in those languages. The words of Mary to her son, "Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing," seem very properly to give the precedence to her husband; and this is their arrangement in St. Luke's Greek, and in the Latin versions, as well as in others.
[399] The hackneyed example, "I and Cicero are well,"—"Ego et Cicero valemus"—which makes such a figure in the grammars, both Latin and English, and yet is ascribed to Cicero himself, deserves a word of explanation. Cicero the orator, having with him his young son Marcus Cicero at Athens, while his beloved daughter Tullia was with her mother in Italy, thus wrote to his wife, Terentia: "Si tu, et Tullia, lux nostra, valetix; ego, et suavissimus Cicero, valemus."—EPIST. AD FAM. Lib. xiv, Ep. v. That is, "If thou, and Tullia, our joy, are well; I, and the sweet lad Cicero, are likewise well." This literal translation is good English, and not to be amended by inversion; for a father is not expected to give precedence to his child. But, when I was a boy, the text and version of Dr. Adam puzzled me not a little; because I could not conceive how Cicero could ever have said, "I and Cicero are well." The garbled citation is now much oftener read than the original. See it in Crombie's Treatise, p. 243; McCulloch's Gram., p. 158; and others.