CHAPTER VIII. PHRASEOLOGY. RHETORICALLY, we may regard as a phrase any combination of words moving together as a unit, as one element of expression. We are not concerned with the question whether it is prepositional, participial, or infinitive. It may for our purpose be no more than a noun with its adjective; it may be as much as a sentence-member with its relative or conjunction. In other words, the present chapter deals with elements of construction considered in their internal relations, without reference to the completed product they make up as joined together; or rather, with those internal relations themselves, the organic laws according to which the unity of words grows into the larger unity of the group. I. SYNTACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS. Not all, nor any considerable portion, of the field of syntax need be traversed here; it will be sufficient to bring up merely some points wherein the grammatical principle receives a special significance or modification from the rhetorical point of view. Concord of Subject and Verb. That a verb should agree in number with its subject, and a pronoun with its antecedent, is a strict grammatical law; rhetorically, however, the question sometimes rises what is the number of the subject or antecedent, a question to be answered by the logical sense. 1. The most prevalent error in concord, probably, is owing to haste; the verb is made to agree with the nearest noun, which, it may be, has stolen in between the subject and the verb and attracted the latter to its own number. EXAMPLES. 1. Of verb attracted to nearest roun. "The enormous expense of governments have provoked men to think, by making them feel "; "This large homestead, including a large barn and beautiful garden, are to be sold next month." 2. Of subject obscured by intervening matter. "But these Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, written as simply and straightforwardly as his battles were fought, couched in the most unpretentious phrase, with never a touch of grandiosity or attitudinizing, familiar, homely, even common in style, is a great piece of literature, because great literature is nothing more nor less than the clear expression of minds that have something great in them, whether religion, or beauty, or deep experience." If this be defended on the ground that the title of a book, though plural in form, takes a singular verb, it may be answered that the author (Howells) has made the subject plural by the word these. 2. As the word and adds two or more singular subjects together, a plural verb is by rule required. Logically, however, these subjects may sometimes be merely synonyms for the same thing; sometimes they may be a closely connected couple making up together a single idea; in which cases the singular verb is right. It should be noted that if a writer ventures on this assertion of the singular he must be sure of his case, for superficial appearances are against him. EXAMPLES. -1. Of synonyms. "All the furniture, the stock of shops, the machinery which could be found in the realm, was of less value than the property which some single parishes now contain." Here the writer (Macaulay) evidently views his three subjects as practically synonyms describing the aspects of one single subject of remark. 2. Of combined couples. The composition and resolution of forces was largely applied by Newton"; "The ebb and flow of the tides is now well understood." In the following, the author, Mrs. Phelps-Ward, having subjects in both numbers, repeats the verb, and so gains emphasis, though grammatically the repetition is not necessary: "The kindest of audiences, and my full quota of encouragement, have not, and has not, been able to supply me with the pluck required to add visibly to this number of public appearances. Before an audience I am an abject coward, and I have at last concluded to admit the humiliating fact."1 3. Another occasion for the writer to work by the logical rather than by the grammatical interpretation of number is the use of the collective noun. This may sometimes convey the idea of the group as a unit, and accordingly be singular; and sometimes, bringing to mind its individual constituents, be plural. The point is to be settled not arbitrarily but by the most natural implication of the sense. EXAMPLES. "The Jewish people were all free." Here plurality predominates, the subject being the Jews regarded as individuals. — “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." Here the action is so collective as to make a singular verb suitable. In the following, the subject is so individualized in thought that the singular verb sounds inappropriate : “The study of the moon's surface has been continued now from the time of Galileo, and of late years a whole class of competent observers has been devoted to it, so that astronomers engaged in other branches have oftener looked on this as a field for occasional hours of recreation with the telescope than made it a constant study." 4. A clash of concord occurs when disjoined subjects (connected, that is, by or or nor) are in different numbers, or so numerous as to suggest not disjunction but plurality. In such cases use, where possible, a form of the verb which is the same for either number (the auxiliary forms are especially useful here); failing this, it is better to change the construction of the sentence than to fight for either the singular or the plural. EXAMPLES. -"Neither money nor brilliant endowments was (or were ?) of use in this crisis; he could only be still and endure." Instead of this verb say "could avail," and the clash is evaded. - 66 Only a few, perhaps only one, were (or was ?) benefited." Say rather, "received any benefit." In the following, where, "though the verb should formally be singular, 1 Quoted from McClure's Magazine, Vol. vii, p. 78. still the number of alternate subjects is strongly suggestive of plurality," the difficulty is evaded, as above, by a neutral verb:-- "truths that wake, To perish never; Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavor, Nor Man nor Boy, ⚫ Nor all that is at enmity with joy, Can utterly abolish or destroy!" 1 The Scheme of Tense. The tenses of the verbs in any passage form together a scheme of tense, past, present, or future, which controls the time in which, relatively, all the action is thought of as taking place. 5. Dependent clauses and infinitives, therefore, are not in an absolute but a relative tense; they count the time of their action from that of the principal assertion. This is wrong, EXAMPLES. "Last week I intended to have written." because at the time referred to "to write was the purpose; "to write" is therefore the proper infinitive relative to "intended." In the same way, I cannot excuse the remissness of those whose business it should have been to have interposed their good offices"; "There were two circumstances which made it necessary for them to have lost no time," — ought to be “to interpose," "to lose." 66 And so, you see, the thing never would have been looked into at all if I had n't happened to have been (say rather "to be") down there." In the use of the verb "should like" the mistake is very commonly made of interchanging the tense of the principal verb and the infinitive, "I should like to have seen him," instead of "I should have liked to see him." This is owing, no doubt, to the difficulty of pronouncing “liked to," when they are placed together; a difficulty, however, which should not be allowed to make the difference between accuracy and error. The following sentence, from Howells, illustrates the correct use: "There were some questions that she would have liked to ask him; but she had to content herself with trying to answer them when her husband put them to her." 6. An exception obtains in the case of general and universal truths, which, as being essentially timeless, require the present tense, whatever the tense of the accompanying verbs. 1 WORDSWORTH, Ode on Intimations of Immortality, st. ix. EXAMPLES. “In the past century some learned gentlemen discovered that there was (say rather is) no God"; "He always maintained with unshaken faith that honesty is the best policy." 7. When the historic present (see above, p. 98) is used, it should be kept in a scheme of its own, and not unadvisedly mixed with the past of ordinary narrative. EXAMPLE. - In the following passage, if the tenses are used of purpose, there is at least a bewildering mixture of the present and past schemes: 66 The Romans now turn aside in quest of provisions. The Helvetians mistook the movement for retreat. They pursue, and give Cæsar his chance. They fight at disadvantage, and after a desperate struggle are defeated." The idle mixture of historic present and past is very common with inexperienced writers and writers without imagination. The Participial Phrase. The participial phrase, equivalent to a clause, is a very convenient means of subordinating one assertion to another, thus avoiding the too frequent use of principal verbs. By its agency conditions, modifications, bits of portrayal may be introduced unobtrusively, without obscuring the current of principal assertion. But some cautions are needed in the use of it; it is peculiarly liable to slipshodness. 8. The participle presupposes a subject to which it relates. This subject, which is generally the subject of the sentence, should be expressed, and the relation of the participle to it should be unambiguous and, if possible, uninterrupted. Ordinarily, too, the subject should have a prominent place in its clause, being the point of reference for the phrase; sometimes, however, when there is no reasonable danger of ambiguity, it may have a less prominent position, though not remain unexpressed. EXAMPLES. 1. Of the misrelated participle. 66 Being exceedingly fond of birds, an aviary is always to be found in the grounds." Here |