As a singular noun requires a singular adjective, so, vice versâ, a singular adjective requires a singular noun. Hence we must condemn as ungrammatical the union of adjectives of number (except one) with nouns in the singular; e. g.,

Incorrect. Twenty foot long.

Correct. Twenty feet long.

Six pound ten shilling.
Six pounds ten shillings.

Two or more adjectives may come together so as to form a compound epithet; e. g.,

Your son is an agreeable young man.

In such cases the conjunction and is not used, and the right of precedence is determined by custom; we do not say,

Your son is a young agreeable man; nor
Your son is a young and agreeable iran.

There has been some discussion as to whether we should say "the two first" or "the first two" when speaking of two objects out of a series; e. g.,

1.

2.

Give me the two first books on that shelf.
Give me the first two books on that shelf.

In reality there is no option between the two phrases, for they are not of the same import. Number one signifies the book that is first and the book that is second in the line of books, each of the two being considered separately; but number two means the first pair of books, it being implied that on the shelf there are several pairs. This second is not the ordinary meaning, consequently "the first two" should not be ordinarily used. The phrase "the two first is elliptical; e. g.,

Seize the two first that enter the room; that is,
Seize the two that first enter the room.

Adjectives in the comparative degree take than after them; e. g.,
He is wiser than you.

The sentence is obviously elliptical; if you fill it up, it will stand thus,

He is wiser than you are.

Here you bears to are the same relation that he bears to is; I mean they are severally subjects to the verbs. Hence arises the ordinary rule, that conjunctions (than is a conjunction) have the same case after as before them. In the following,

I believe him to be wiser than you,

you may be either the subject or the object, according to the construction intended. I will fill up the ellipsis in two ways, and you will see the difference,

Subject. I believe him to be wiser than you (are).

Object. I believe him to be wiser than (I believe) you (to be). The proper way, then, to ascertain the relation which a noun or

pronouns holds after a comparative, is to fill up the ellipsis or supply the words necessary to complete the sense.

After than an objective case is sometimes found; e. g.,

Nero, than whom no sovereign committed greater crimes.

This usage is an imitation from the Latin, and not to be encouraged in English. The sentence should be thrown into a different form; e. g.,

Nero, who committed greater crimes than any other sovereign. may notice a difference of import between two nearly

And here

related propositions; e. g.,

Solomon was wiser than any king.

Solomon was wiser than any other king.

The difference lies in this, namely, that in the second sentence Solomon is made one of the class called kings, while in the former sentence he is not included in that class.

If you say,

Iron is more useful than all metals,

you, by the use of all, intimate that iron is not a metal, and so do not compare the metal iron with other metals. The proper phrase is, Iron is more useful than other metals (are).

Even this, however, is not rigidly correct, for it makes iron more useful than other metals, considered collectively, or in a mass; but what you mean is that,

Iron is more useful than any other metal.

Other, which is here required, is with the superlative out of place. Some adjectives, from the nature of their import, do not admit of comparison. If a thing is universal, it cannot be more than universal, consequently universal has no comparative and no superlative. Equally is perfect incapable of comparison. The same may be said of absolute, infinite, interminable, boundless. Accordingly it is incorrect to say,

He is more perfect than you;

instead of which you may say,

He is less imperfect than you; or
He is nearer perfection than you.

Double comparisons are to be avoided; e. g.,
Incorrect. Less nobler plunder.

Correct.

Less noble plunder,

NOUNS.

The most straitest sect
The straitest sect.

VARIOUS FORMS OF THE SUBJECT OF A PROPOSITION.

WE now come to the noun man in our model sentence,

The sick man copiously drinks.

The noun man is the subject to the verb drinks. We thus see that a noun may be the subject of a proposition. Is there any other part of speech that may be the subject of a proposition?

1. An adjective may be the subject of a proposition; e. g.,

The sick drink.

But here it must be observed that for drinks I have substituted drink, the plural for the singular form of the verb. The rule then is, that adjectives when used in the plural and preceded by the definite article may be the subject of a proposition.

2. A pronoun may be the subject of a proposition; e. g.,

say,

I, the sick man, drink.

Here I is the subject to the verb drink, as I drink; so we may

You, the sick man, drink.

I, you, we, they drink.

These additions to the subject modify the signification; and offer instances of what is called apposition. Apposition (from ad, to, and pono, I place) exists when a noun is added to a pronoun or a noun in order to explain the intended meaning. Thus here it is not 1 merely that drinks, but I, the sick man. Instead of a pronoun you may have a noun, as,

Alexander, the son of Philip, conquered Darius. Apposition takes place in the object as well as in the subject ; e. g., Wine overcame Alexander, the son of Philip.

3. An infinitive mood may be the subject of a proposition; e. g., To labour is pleasure.

Other words may be connected with the infinitive mood; as,
A noun. To drink water is pleasant.

A noun and adjective. To drink good water is wholesome.

A noun, adjective, and adverb. To drink good water copiously is whole

some.

4. A present participle may be the subject of a proposition; as, Drinking is bad.

Drinking has here participial force. ject to the verb is.

the force of a noun, while it retains also its That it is a noun is clear from its being the subThat it has also the force of a participle is clear from its power to govern an object; as,

Drinking spirits is bad.

As a noun, drinking may be qualified by an article, an adjective, and a personal pronoun; e. g.,

Article. The drinking was injurious

A ective. Much drinking is very injuricus.

Pers. Pron. His drinking has been injurious to him.

Equally may the participial force carry with it words qualifying the object; as,

Drinking pure water is wholesome.

Drinking even a glass of wine may be blamed.

This last sentence presents a subject compounded of several words, for the subject to the verb may is the clause, drinking even a glass of wine.

Here is a clear and striking instance of the advantage of the term subject over the term nominative or nominative case. These words are the subject, but they are not the nominative of the verb may. The nominative case must be restricted to drinking.

I subjoin another example of this compound subject :-
Buying books which you do not read will not make you wise.

In this subject you have a sentence within a sentence; that is, the proposition is not a simple but a compound sentence, the included or subordinate sentence being which you do not read.

A past participle may be added to a present participle so as to form the subject of a proposition; e. g.,

Being involved in debt drove him from his country.

Here too qualifying words may be introduced, as,
Being greatly involved in debt, &c.

The past participle itself cannot, however, be a subject to a proposition. We may indeed say,

Driven is a past participle;

but here driven is used in a general sense as a noun, and may have prefixed to it these terms, the word, as, "the word driven is a noun.' When this participial noun has the article connected with it, it in a measure loses its participial force, and, becoming a noun, is connected with a second noun by means of a preposition; e. g.,

The driving of the cattle was blamed.

With the noun, however, adverbs may be joined; e. g.,
The driving-off of cattle is a crime at law.

The subject in this last sentence is very complex, extending as it does to the verb is.

The two last sentences would, however, sound better and be more simple if the article and the preposition were dropped; e. g.,

Driving-off cattle is a crime at law.

The subject of a sentence is sometimes a proposition, or several words introduced by an adverb or a preposition. Such subjects are likely to give the learner trouble; I, therefore, give specimens, marking the words which form the several subjects.

The compound subjects I have now laid before you contain instances of both agreement and government. They contain instances of agreement in,

1. Much drinking is very injurious.
2. Drinking pure water is wholesome.

In number 1. much is an adjective agreeing with the participial noun drinking, whose meaning it qualifies. In number 2. pure is an adjective agreeing with water, whose meaning it qualifies. The instances of government which it is chiefly important to notice, are found in these propositions:

1. Drinking spirits is bad.

2. Drinking a glass of wine is not necessary.

3. Disturbing the peace of the queen's subjects.

In number 1. we have the simple case of the object depending on the verb, and the rule may be given as the object of a proposition depends on or is governed by its verb.

In number 2. we find the Norman or false genitive in the words a glass of wine, where the two nouns are connected by of, and the latter, namely wine, depends on or is governed by the preposition.

In the third sentence the words queen's subjects present an instance of the Saxon genitive, in which the former term queen's depends on or is governed by the term subjects; the rule may be laid down thus : Of two nouns in immediate dependence, the former is in the geni

tive case.

This last example contains an instance of both the Norman and the Saxon genitive, and that too in combination, as in the words, The peace of the queen's subjects.

These two genitives may be indicated thus:

The Saxon genitive. Queen's subjects.

The Norman genitive. The peace of the subjects.

For the Saxon genitive, the rule is that when two nouns come together the dependent noun is in the genitive case. Observe that the dependence is merely structural, as in "queen's subjects," the form queen becomes the form queen's by being dependent on subjects. You may state the rule thus also, the possessive case is the case of the possessor, as, John's books. Thus stated the relation is more than structural, for possession is a fact.

Instead of a noun, a clause, or several words, may govern the genitive case. Instances of this kind involve idioms that may be called peculiarly English, though similar constructions appear in Greek.

What is the reason of this person's hasty dismissal of his servants?

What is the reason of this person's dismissing his servant so hastily?

He prevented his army's being enclosed.

Possessive pronouns may hold the place of the genitive; as,

This is the last time of my acting so imprudently.

In this instance the pronoun agrees with the participle as if it

were a noun.

Sometimes the idea of possession is wholly dropped, and the