Conjugated—­First pers. sing.  I tremble, 2 pers. thou tremblest, 3 pers. he trembles, or, the hand trembles.  Plural, 1 pers. we tremble, 2 pers. ye or you tremble, 3 pers. they or the hands tremble.

Government, in language, consists in the power which one word has over another, in causing that other word to be in some particular case, number, person, mood, or tense.

ILLUSTRATION.

RULE 3. The nominative case governs the verb.

If you employ the pronoun I, which is of the first person, singular number, as the nominative to a verb, the verb must be of the first pers. sing, thus, I smile; and when your nominative is second pers. sing, your verb must be; as, thou smil_est_.  Why, in the latter instance, does the ending of the verb change to est?  Because the nominative changes.  And if your nominative is third person, the verb will vary again; thus, he smiles, the man smiles.  How clear it is, then, that the nominative governs the verb; that is, the nominative has power to change the form and meaning of the verb, in respect to num. and person.  Government, thus far, is evinced in the form of the words, as well as in the sense.

RULE 4. The verb must agree with its nominative in number and person.

It is improper to say, thou hear, the men hears.  Why improper?  Because hear is first pers. and the nominative thou is second pers. Hears is singular, and the nom. men is plural.  Rule 4th says, The verb must agree with its nominative.  The expressions should, therefore, be, thou hear_est_, the men hear; and then the verb would agree with its nominatives.  But why must the verb agree with its nominative?  Why must we say, thou talk_est_, the man talks, men talk?  Because the genius of our language, and the common consent of those who speak it, require such a construction:  and this requisition amounts to a law or rule.  This rule, then, is founded in the nature of things, and sanctioned by good usage.

RULE 12. A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun which it possesses.

It is correct to say, The man eats, he eats; but we cannot say, the man dog eats, he dog eats.  Why not?  Because the man is here represented as the possessor, and dog, the property, or thing possessed; and the genius of our language requires, that when we add to the possessor, the thing which he is represented as possessing, the possessor shall take a particular form to show its case, or relation to the property; thus, The man’s dog eats, his dog eats.  You perceive, then, that the added noun, denoting the thing possessed, has power to change the form of the noun or pronoun denoting the possessor, according to RULE 12. thus, by adding dog in the preceding examples, man is changed to man’s, and he, to his.