“In Hawick twinkled many a light,
    Behind him soon they set in night.”—­W.  Scott.

EXCEPTION FIFTH.

When a plural pronoun is put by enallage for the singular, it does not agree with its noun in number, because it still requires a plural verb; as, “We [Lindley Murray] have followed those authors, who appear to have given them the most natural and intelligible distribution.”—­Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 29. “We shall close our remarks on this subject, by introducing the sentiments of Dr. Johnson respecting it.”—­Ib. “My lord, you know I love you”—­Shakspeare.

EXCEPTION SIXTH.

The pronoun sometimes disagrees with its antecedent in one sense, because it takes it in an other; as, “I have perused Mr. Johnson’s Grammatical Commentaries, and find it[380] a very laborious, learned, and useful Work.”—­Tho.  Knipe, D. D. “Lamps is of the plural number, because it means more than one.”—­Smith’s New Gram., p. 8. “Man is of the masculine gender, because it is the name of a male.”—­Ib. “The Utica Sentinel says it has not heard whether the wounds are dangerous.”—­Evening Post. (Better:  “The editor of the Utica Sentinel says, he has not heard,” &c.) “There is little Benjamin with their ruler.”—­Psalms, lxviii, 27.

   “Her end when emulation misses,
    She turns to envy, stings, and hisses.”—­Swift’s Poems, p. 415.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE X.

OBS. 1.—­Respecting a pronoun, the main thing is, that the reader perceive clearly for what it stands; and next, that he do not misapprehend its relation of case.  For the sake of completeness and uniformity in parsing, it is, I think, expedient to apply the foregoing rule not only to those pronouns which have obvious antecedents expressed, but also to such as are not accompanied by the nouns for which they stand.  Even those which are put for persons or things unknown or indefinite, may be said to agree with whatever is meant by them; that is, with such nouns as their own properties indicate.  For the reader will naturally understand something by every pronoun, unless it be a mere expletive, and without any antecedent.  For example:  “It would depend upon who the forty were.”—­Trial at Steubenville, p. 50.  Here who is an indefinite relative, equivalent to what persons; of the third person, plural, masculine; and is in the nominative case after were, by Rule 6th.  For the full construction seems to be this:  “It would depend upon the persons who the forty were.”  So which, for which person, or which thing, (if we call it a pronoun rather than an adjective,) may be said to have the properties of the noun person or thing understood; as,