Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1876-12-15
9Benit
BRATTLEBoRO:
FRIDAY EVENING, DEC. 10, 1876.



&C., attempts to justify the form of the verb
"do find" as hero used. To do this, he, in
the first place, refers TO Shakespeare and
quotes from him two sentences, the pith of
which is, "ir you do find them," &c, and
'lr you do find him." &c. But there is no
real analogy, in either of these examples,
TO the case before us; since the subject
nominative "you," as Webster aud all good
authorities declare, sis always properly
combined with a plural verb !" while, in
the example under consideration, the sub
ject is in the singular, and the predicate in
the plural.
Equally irrelevant and worthless are the
examples which &c. L. W." manufactures
for the nonce, viz, "You, John, who find"
&C., "You, Mr.. Critic, who do not find"
&C., where, as above. both the subject and
The predicate, in each example, Is plural,
while in tho case before us the one is plural
and the other is sin9ular,-a difference
which "a study OF language and usage"
will hardly allow us to overlook in its
bearing on the form we are TO give the
predicate. And the "critic' Is not little
surprised and puzzled to find such irrele-
want examples brought forward, in this
way, by writer and scholar, so thorough,
accurate and accomplished as the man,
supposed to DO represented by &c. L. w."
is everywhere reputed and known to he.
Verify here is another "nut"-call it
number two.
Nor is the "critic" less puzzled and sur
priced TO find the author, under review,
attempting TO dispose of the original "nut'
on sanitary grounds, intimating that the
form in question is one which most people
sin their saner moments would use." No
doubt our author can put the sentence into
some other form, and make that form
seem, if not ludicrous, at least affected and
offensive; but that would be no proof that
the form lie has adopted is either pleasing
or proper.
Nor yet, again, does it help tho author
out of his embarrassment, to Try 10 "drive"
a sharp distinction between "grammatic
rules" and "a study of language and us
=" as If grammatic rules, at least all
that deserve The name, were anything more
or less than just the fruit and formulated
embodiment of that knowledge of the
forms and idioms, laws and principles OF
language, to which nothing but "a study
of language and usage" can ever lead.
So plain is it, that &c. L. W." "does not
find himself supported either by literary or
common usage" nor yet by an appeal 81
Their TO "saner moments Or To distinc-
ton without difference. The "nur' still
remains, sound as ever; and from tho sue
cessful resistance it has thus far offered to
hard blows, ii would seem to be not "par
ticularly sensitive and thin,'-much less
"very hollow" But the 'critic" thinks it
may be cracked, and hopes the author of it
will not give up in despair.
One OF the ways in which he might have
gone about ii, as the "critic" thought, was
TO frankly admit, in the start, tina: the form
OF the verb "do find, as usedin the exam.
pie under review, may be set down for the
present, that is, in the present Stage OF the
English language, as anomalous, whether as
judged of by the average grammatic sense,
or measured Ivy any law or usage that has,
as yet, come TO he clearly established aud
generally recognized as reputable or bind
ing. Having done this, the ''crlic" would
have thought il quite possible and "per-
missible" for the author to try and defend
himself in one or another of several ways.
For instance, ne might have made his APP
peal to The law of detection, and have
claimed that there was, in this case, kind
of natural, though unconscious, forecasting
of the mind TO the more common and ia
miiar form of the prououn yourself"
(nslead Of myself, to which, he was logical
~ commilted), as the form which he was
about TO use 50 that, in putting Off the
"full panoply Of solemnity," "my dear,
though imperfect brother" &c, in which
he had started out, and preparing 10 take
up the mure common aud familiar style he
was to use in this yourself" lie effects the
transition by adopting, unconsciously, the
form OF the verb, as to number, which
would he more in harmony with what was
10 follow, though not Ia harmony with the
opening of The sentence. For, as the pro-
noun "you" sis always properly combined
with the plural verb" so the corresponding
form yourself" being anticipated, and
having thereby an antecedent influence,
would naturally help defect the mind from
the singular to the plural, and give the
form lido find" instead Of the singular
dost find. ....a
o.. as the "critic' thought, II was posi-
BILE and 'permisSible' for the author OF the
sentence under review, to attempt a de-
fenseipn the ground OF what, perhaps, Mr..
White would call helerophemy, or kind
of unconscious ration,-unwiItinGiy
saying what does not accord with the minds
latent knowledge OF the facts in Il Q case.
That is, in the example before us, in pass
ing from the subject-nominative "who''