What then is the _agreement_ of words? Can it be anything else than their _similarity_ in some common property or modification? And is it not obvious, that no two things in nature can at all _agree_, or _be alike_, except in some quality or accident which belongs to each of them? Yet how often have _Murray_ and others, as well as _Lowth_, forgotten this! To give one instance out of many: "_Gender_ has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, _he, she, it_."--_Murray, J. Peirce, Flint, Lyon, Bacon, Russell, Fisk, Maltby, Alger, Miller, Merchant, Kirkham_, and other careless copyists. Yet, according to these same gentlemen, "Gender is _the distinction of nouns_, with regard to sex;" and, "Pronouns _must always agree_ with their antecedents, _and the nouns_ for which they stand, in gender." Now, not one of these three careless assertions can possibly be reconciled with either of the others!

OBS. 18.--_Government_ has respect only to nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, and prepositions; the other five parts of speech neither govern nor are governed. The _governing_ words may be either nouns, or verbs, or participles, or prepositions; the words _governed_ are either nouns, or pronouns, or verbs, or participles. In parsing, the learner must remember that the rules of government are not to be applied to the _governing_ words, but to those which _are governed_; and which, for the sake of brevity, are often technically named after the particular form or modification assumed; as, _possessives, objectives, infinitives, gerundives_. These are the only things in English, that can properly be said to be subject to government; and these are always so, in their own names; unless we except such infinitives as stand in the place of nominatives. _Gerundives_ are participles governed by prepositions; but, there being little or no occasion to distinguish these from other participles, we seldom use this name. The Latin _Gerund_ differs from a participle, and the English _Gerundive_ differs from a participial noun.

The participial noun may be the subject or the object of a verb, or may govern the possessive case before it, like any other noun; but the true English gerundive, being essentially a participle, and governing an object after it, like any other participle, is itself governed only by a preposition. At least, this is its usual and allowed construction, and no other is acknowledged to be indisputably right.

OBS. 19.--The simple _Relations_ of words in English, (or those several _uses_ of the parts of speech which we may refer to this head,) are the following nine: (1.) Of Articles to nouns, by Rule 1st; (2.) Of Nominatives to verbs, by Rule 2d; (3.) Of Nominatives absolute or independent, by Rule 8th; (4.) Of Adjectives to nouns or pronouns, by Rule 9th; (5.) Of Participles to nouns or pronouns, by Rule 20th; (6.) Of Adverbs to verbs, participles, &c., by Rule 21st; (7.) Of Conjunctions as connecting words, phrases, or sentences, by Rule 22nd; (8.) Of Prepositions as showing the relations of things, by Rule 23d; (9.) Of Interjections as being used independently, by Rule 24th.

OBS. 20.--The syntactical _Agreements_ in English, though actually much fewer than those which occur in Latin, Greek, or French, may easily be so reckoned as to amount to double, or even triple, the number usually spoken of by the old grammarians. The twenty-four rules above, embrace the following ten heads, which may not improperly be taken for so many distinct concords: (1.) Of a Noun or Pronoun in direct apposition with another, by Rule 3d; (2.) Of a Noun or Pronoun after a verb or participle not transitive, by Rule 6th; (3.) Of a Pronoun with its antecedent, by Rule 10th; (4.) Of a Pronoun with a collective noun, by Rule 11th; (5.) Of a Pronoun with joint antecedents, by Rule 12th; (6.) Of a Pronoun with disjunct antecedents, by Rule 13th; (7.) Of a Verb with its nominative, by Rule 14th; (8.) Of a Verb with a collective noun, by Rule 15th; (9.) Of a Verb with joint nominatives, by Rule 16th; (10.) Of a Verb with disjunct nominatives, by Rule 17th. To these may be added two other _special_ concords, less common and less important, which will be explained in _notes_ under the rules: (11.) Of one Verb with an other, in mood, tense, and form, when two are connected so as to agree with the same nominative; (12.) Of Adjectives that imply unity or plurality, with their nouns, in number.

OBS. 21.--Again, by a different mode of reckoning them, the concords or the _general principles_ of agreement, in our language, may be made to be only three or four; and some of these much _less general_, than they are in other languages: (1.) _Words in apposition agree in case_, according to Rule 3d; of which principle, Rule 6th may be considered a modification. (2.) _Pronouns agree, with their nouns, in person, number, and gender_, according to Rule 10th; of which principle, Rules 11th, 12th, and 13th, may be reckoned modifications. (3.) _Verbs agree with their nominatives, in person and number_, according to Rule 14th; of which principle Rules 15th, 16th, and 17th, and the occasional agreement of one verb with an other, may be esteemed mere modifications. (4.) _Some adjectives agree with their nouns in number_. These make up the twelve concords above enumerated.

OBS. 22.--The rules of _Government_ in the best Latin grammars are about sixty; and these are usually distributed (though not very properly) under three heads; "1. Of Nouns. 2. Of Verbs. 3. Of Words indeclinable."-- _Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 170. "Regimen est triplex: 1. Nominum. 2.

Verborum. 3. Vocum indeclinabilium."--_Ruddiman's Gram._, p. 138. This division of the subject brings all the _titles_ of the rules wrong. For example, if the rule be, "Active verbs govern the accusative case," this is not properly "the government of _verbs_" but rather the government _of the accusative_ by verbs. At least, such titles are _equivocal_, and likely to mislead the learner. The governments in English are only seven, and these are expressed, perhaps with sufficient distinctness, in six of the foregoing rules: (1.) Of Possessives by nouns, in Rule 4th; (2.) Of Objectives by verbs, in Rule 5th; (3.) Of Objectives by participles, in Rule 5th; (4.) Of Objectives by prepositions, in Rule 7th; (5.) Of Infinitives by the preposition _to_, in Rule 18th; (6.) Of Infinitives by the verbs _bid, dare_, &c., in Rule 19th; (7.) Of Participles by prepositions, in Rule 20th.

OBS. 23.--The _Arrangement_ of words, (which will be sufficiently treated of in the observations hereafter to be made on the several rules of construction,) is an important part of syntax, in which not only the beauty but the propriety of language is intimately concerned, and to which particular attention should therefore be paid in composition. But it is to be remembered, that the mere collocation of words in a sentence never affects the method of parsing them: on the contrary, the same words, however placed, are always to be parsed in precisely the same way, so long as they express precisely the same meaning. In order to show that we have parsed any part of an inverted or difficult sentence rightly, we are at liberty to declare the meaning by any arrangement which will make the construction more obvious, provided we retain both the sense and all the words unaltered; but to drop or alter any word, is to pervert the text under pretence of resolving it, and to make a mockery of parsing. Grammar rightly learned, enables one to understand both the sense and the construction of whatsoever is rightly written; and he who reads what he does not understand, reads to little purpose. With great indignity to the muses, several pretenders to grammar have foolishly taught, that, "In parsing poetry, in order to _come at the meaning_ of the author, the learner will find it necessary to transpose his language."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 166. See also the books of _Merchant, Wilcox, O. B. Peirce, Hull, Smith, Felton_, and others, to the same effect. To what purpose can he _transpose_ the words of a sentence, who does not first see what they mean, and how to explain or parse them as they stand?

OBS. 24.--Errors innumerable have been introduced into the common modes of parsing, through a false notion of what constitutes a _simple sentence_.

Lowth, Adam, Murray, Gould, Smith, Ingersoll, Comly, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, Wells, and many others, say, "A simple sentence has in it _but one subject_, and _one finite verb_: as, 'Life is short.'"--_L. Murray's Gram._, p. 141. In accordance with this assertion, some assume, that, "Every nominative _has its own verb_ expressed or understood;" and that, "Every verb (except in the infinitive mood and participle) _has its own nominative_ expressed or understood."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 87. The adopters of these dogmas, of course think it right to _supply_ a nominative whenever they do not find a separate one expressed for every finite verb, and a verb whenever they do not find a separate one expressed for every nominative. This mode of interpretation not only precludes the agreement of a verb with two or more nominatives, so as to render nugatory two of the most important rules of these very gentlemen's syntax; but, what is worse, it perverts many a plain, simple, and perfect sentence, to a form which its author did not choose, and a meaning which he never intended. Suppose, for example, the text to be, "A good constitution and good laws make good subjects."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 152. Does not the verb _make_ agree with _constitution_ and _laws_, taken conjointly? and is it not a _perversion_ of the sentence to interpret it otherwise? Away then with all this _needless subaudition!_ But while we thus deny that there can be a true ellipsis of what is not necessary to the construction, it is not to be denied that there _are_ true ellipses, and in some men's style very many.

The assumption of O. B. Peirce, that no correct sentence is elliptical, and his impracticable project of a grammar founded on this principle, are among the grossest of possible absurdities.

OBS. 25.--Dr. Wilson says, "There may be several subjects to the same verb, several verbs to the same subject, or several objects to the same verb, and the sentence be simple. But when the sentence remains simple, the same verb must be differently affected by its several adjuncts, or the sense liable to be altered by a separation. If the verb or the subject _be_ affected in the same manner, or the sentence _is_ resolvable into more, it is compounded. Thus, 'Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, mixed in due proportion, produce white,' is a simple sentence, for the subject is indivisible. But, 'Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red, are refrangible rays of light,' is a compound sentence, and may be separated into seven."--_Essay on Gram._, p. 186. The propriety of the distinction here made, is at least questionable; and I incline to consider the second example a simple sentence, as well as the first; because what the writer calls a separation into seven, involves a change of _are_ to _is_, and of _rays_ to _ray_, as well as a sevenfold repetition of this altered predicate, "_is a refrangible ray of light_." But the parser, in interpreting the words of others, and expounding the construction of what is written, has no right to alter anything in this manner. Nor do I admit that he has a right to insert or repeat anything _needlessly_; for the nature of a sentence, or the syntax of some of its words, may often be altered without change of the sense, or of any word for an other: as, "'A wall seven feet high;' that is, 'A wall _which is_ seven feet high.'"--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 109. "'He spoke and acted prudently;' that is, 'He spoke _prudently_, and _he_ acted prudently.'"--_Ibid._ '"He spoke and acted wisely;' that is, 'He spoke _wisely_, and _he_ acted wisely.'"--_Murray's Gram._, p. 219; _Alger's_, 70: _R. C. Smith's_, 183; _Weld's_, 192; and others. By this notion of ellipsis, the connexion or joint relation of words is destroyed.

OBS. 26.--Dr. Adam, who thought the division of sentences into simple and compound, of sufficient importance to be made the basis of a general division of syntax into two parts, has defined a simple sentence to be, "that which has but one nominative, and one finite verb;" and a compound sentence, "that which has more than one nominative, or one finite verb."

And of the latter he gives the following erroneous and self-contradictory account: "A compound sentence is made up of two or more simple sentences or _phrases_, and is commonly called a _Period_. The parts of which a compound sentence consists, are called _Members_ or _Clauses_. In every compound sentence there are either several subjects and one attribute, or several attributes and one subject, or both several subjects and several attributes; that is, there are either several nominatives applied to the same verb, or several verbs applied to the same nominative, or both. Every verb marks a judgment or attribute, and every attribute must have a subject. There must, therefore, be in every sentence or period, as many propositions as there are verbs of a finite mode. Sentences are compounded by means of relatives and conjunctions; as, Happy is the man _who_ loveth religion, and practiseth virtue."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 202; _Gould's_, 199; and others.

OBS. 27.--Now if every compound sentence consists of such parts, members, or clauses, as are in themselves sentences, either simple or compound, either elliptical or complete; it is plain, in the first place, that the term "phrases" is misapplied above, because a phrase is properly only a part of some simple sentence. And if "a simple sentence is that which has but one nominative and one finite verb," and "a compound sentence is made up of two or more simple sentences," it follows, since "all sentences are either simple or compound," that, _in no sentence, can there be_ "either several nominatives applied to the same verb, or several verbs applied to the same nominative." What, therefore, this author regarded as _the characteristic_ of all compound sentences, is, according to his own previous positions, utterly impossible to any sentence. Nor is it less repugnant to his subsequent doctrine, that, "Sentences are compounded by means of _relatives_ and _conjunctions_;" for, according to his notion, "A conjunction is an indeclinable word, which serves to join _sentences_ together."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 149. It is assumed, that, "In every _sentence_ there must be a verb and a nominative expressed or understood."--_Ib._, p. 151. Now if there happen to be two nominatives to one verb, as when it was said, "Even the _winds_ and the _sea_ obey him;"

this cannot be anything more than a simple sentence; because one single verb is a thing indivisible, and how can we suppose it to form the most essential part of two different sentences at once?

OBS. 28.--The distinction, or real difference, between those simple sentences in which two or more nominatives or verbs are taken conjointly, and those compound sentences in which there is an ellipsis of some of the nominatives or verbs, is not always easy to be known or fixed; because in many instances, a supposed _ellipsis_, without at all affecting the sense, may obviously change the construction, and consequently the nature of the sentence. For example: "And they all forsook him, and [they all]

fled."--_Mark_, xiv, 50. Some will say, that the words in brackets are here _understood_. I may deny it, because they are needless; and nothing needless can form a true ellipsis. To the supplying of useless words, if we admit the principle, there may be no end; and the notion that conjunctions join sentences only, opens a wide door for it. For example: "And that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."--_Job_, i, 1. No additional words will make this clause any plainer, and none are really necessary to the construction; yet some grammarians will parse it with the following impletions, or more: "And that man was _a_ perfect _man_, and _he was an_ upright _man_, and _he was_ one _man_ that feared God, and _that_ eschewed evil _things_." It is easy to see how this liberty of interpretation, or of interpolation, will change simple sentences to compound sentences, as well as alter the nature and relation of many particular words; and at the same time, it takes away totally those peculiarities of construction by which Dr. Adam and others would recognize a sentence as being compound. What then? are there not two kinds of sentences? Yes, truly; but these authors are wrong in their notions and definitions of both. Joint nominatives or joint verbs may occur in either; but they belong primarily to some simple sentences, and only for that reason are found in any that are compound. A sentence, too, may possibly be made compound, when a simple one would express the whole meaning as well or better; as, "And [David] smote the Philistines from Geba _until thou come_ to Gazer."--_2 Sam._, v, 25. Here, if we omit the words in Italics, the sentence will become simple, not elliptical.

THE ANALYZING OF SENTENCES.

To analyze a sentence, is, to resolve it into some species of constituent parts, but most properly into words, its first significant elements, and to point out their several relations and powers in the given connexion.

The component parts of a sentence are _members, clauses, phrases_, or _words_. Some sentences, which are short and simple, can only be divided into their words; others, which are long and complex, may be resolved into parts again and again divisible.

Of analysis applicable to sentences, there are several different methods; and, so far as their difference may compatibly aid the application of different principles of the science of grammar, there may be an advantage in the occasional use of each.

FIRST METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

_Sentences not simple may be reduced to their constituent members, clauses, or simple sentences; and the means by which these are united, may be shown.

Thus_:--

EXAMPLE ANALYZED.

"Even the Atheist, who tells us that the universe is self-existent and indestructible--even he, who, instead of seeing the traces of a manifold wisdom in its manifold varieties, sees nothing in them all but the exquisite structures and the lofty dimensions of materialism--even he, who would despoil creation of its God, cannot look upon its golden suns, and their accompanying systems, without the solemn impression of a magnificence that fixes and overpowers him."--DR. CHALMERS, _Discourses on Revelation and Astronomy_, p. 231.

ANALYSIS.--This is a compound sentence, consisting of three complex members, which are separated by the two dashes. The three members are united in one sentence, by a suspension of the sense at each dash, and by two virtual repetitions of the subject, "_Atheist_" through the pronoun "_he_," put in the same case, and representing this noun. The sense mainly intended is not brought out till the period ends. Each of the three members is complex, because each has not only a relative clause, commencing with "_who_," but also an antecedent word which makes sense with "_cannot look_," &c. The first of these relative clauses involves also a subordinate, supplementary clause,--"_the universe is self-existent and indestructible_"--introduced after the verb "_tells_" by the conjunction "_that_." The last phrase, "_without the solemn impression_," &c., which is subjoined by "_without_" to "_cannot look_," embraces likewise a subordinate, relative clause,--"_that fixes and overpowers him_,"--which has two verbs; the whole, antecedent and all, being but an adjunct of an adjunct, yet an essential element of the sentence.

SECOND METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

_Simple sentences, or the simple members of compound sentences, may be resolved into their PRINCIPAL and their SUBORDINATE PARTS; the subject, the verb, and the case put after or governed by the verb, being first pointed out as THE PRINCIPAL PARTS; and the other words being then detailed as ADJUNCTS to these, according to THE SENSE, or as adjuncts to adjuncts.

Thus_:--

EXAMPLE ANALYZED.

"Fear naturally quickens the flight of guilt. Rasselas could not catch the fugitive, with his utmost efforts; but, resolving to weary, by perseverance, him whom he could not surpass in speed, he pressed on till the foot of the mountain stopped his course."--DR. JOHNSON, _Rasselas_, p.

23.

ANALYSIS.--The first period here is a simple sentence. Its principal parts are--_Fear, quickens, flight_; _Fear_ being the subject, _quickens_ the verb, and _flight_ the object. _Fear_ has no adjunct; _naturally_ is an adjunct of _quickens_; _the_ and _of guilt_ are adjuncts of _flight_. The second period is composed of several clauses, or simple members, united.

The first of these is also a simple sentence, having, three principal parts--_Rasselas, could catch_, and _fugitive_; the subject, the verb, and its object, in their order. _Not_ is added to _could catch_, reversing the meaning; _the_ is an adjunct to _fugitive_; _with_ joins its phrase to _could not catch_; but _his_ and _utmost_ are adjuncts of _efforts_. The word _but_ connects the two chief members as parts of one sentence.

"_Resolving to weary_" is an adjunct to the pronoun _he_, which stands before _pressed_. "_By perseverance_," is an adjunct to _weary_. _Him_ is governed by _weary_, and is the antecedent to _whom_. "_Whom he could not surpass in speed_," is a relative clause, or subordinate simple member, having three principal parts--_he, could surpass_, and _whom. Not_ and _in speed_ are adjuncts to the verb _could surpass_. "_He pressed on_" is an other simple member, or sentence, and the chief clause here used, the others being subjoined to this. Its principal parts are two, _he_ and _pressed_; the latter taking the particle _on_ as an adjunct, and being intransitive. The words dependent on the nominative _he_, (to wit, _resolving_, &c.,) have already been mentioned. _Till_ is a conjunctive adverb of time, connecting the concluding clause to _pressed on_. "_The foot of the mountain stopped his course_," is a subordinate clause and simple member, whose principal parts are--the subject _foot_, the verb _stopped_, and the object _course_. The adjuncts of _foot_ are _the_ and _of the mountain_; the verb in this sentence has no adjunct but _course_, which is better reckoned a principal word; lastly, _his_ is an adjunct to _course_, and governed by it.

THIRD METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

_Sentences may be partially analyzed by a resolution into their SUBJECTS and their PREDICATES, a method which some late grammarians have borrowed from the logicians; the grammatical subject with its adjuncts, being taken for the logical subject; and the finite verb, which some call the grammatical predicate[330] being, with its subsequent case and the adjuncts of both, denominated the predicate, or the logical predicate. Thus_:--

EXAMPLE ANALYZED.

"Such is the emptiness of human enjoyment, that we are always impatient of the present. Attainment is followed by neglect, and possession, by disgust.

Few moments are more pleasing than those in which the mind is concerting measures for a new undertaking. From the first hint that wakens the fancy, to the hour of actual execution, all is improvement and progress, triumph and felicity."--DR. JOHNSON, _Rambler_.

ANALYSIS.--Here the first period is a compound sentence, containing two clauses,--which are connected by _that_. In the first clause, _emptiness_ is the grammatical subject, and "_the emptiness of human enjoyment_" is the logical. _Is_ some would call the grammatical predicate, and "Such is," or _is such_, the logical; but the latter consists, as the majority teach, of "the copula" _is_, and "the attribute," or "predicate," _such_. In the second clause, (which explains the import of "_Such_,") the subject is _we_; which is unmodified, and in which therefore the logical form and the grammatical coincide and are the same. _Are_ may here be called the grammatical predicate; and "_are always impatient of the present_," the logical. The second period, too, is a compound sentence, having two clauses, which are connected by _and_. _Attainment_ is the subject of the former; and, "_is followed by neglect_" is the predicate. In the latter, _possession_ alone is the subject; and, "[_is followed_] _by disgust_," is the predicate; the verb _is followed_ being understood at the comma. The third period, likewise, is a compound, having three parts, with the two connectives _than_ and _which_. Here we have _moments_ for the first grammatical subject, and _Few moments_ for the logical; then, _are_ for the grammatical predicate, and _are more pleasing_ for the logical: or, if we choose to say so, for "the copula and the attribute." "_Than those_," is an elliptical member, meaning, "than _are_ those _moments_," or, "than those _moments are pleasing_;" both subject and predicate are wholly suppressed, except that _those_ is reckoned a part of the logical subject. _In which_ is an adjunct of _is concerting_, and serves well to connect the members, because _which_ represents _those_, i.e. _those moments._ _Mind_, or _the mind_, is the next subject of affirmation; and _is concerting_, or, "_is concerting measures for a new undertaking_," is the predicate or matter affirmed. Lastly, the fourth period, like the rest, is compound. The phrases commencing with _From_ and _to_, describe a period of time, and are adjuncts of the verb _is._ The former contains a subordinate relative clause, of which _that_ (representing _hint_) is the subject, and _wakens_, or _wakens the fancy_, the predicate. Of the principal clause, the word _all_, taken as a noun, is the subject, whether grammatical or logical; and "the copula," or "grammatical predicate," _is_, becomes, with its adjuncts and the nominatives following, the logical predicate.

FOURTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

_All syntax is founded on the_ RELATION _of words one to an other, and the_ CONNEXION _of clauses and phrases, according to_ THE SENSE. _Hence sentences may be, in some sort, analyzed, and perhaps profitably, by the tracing of such relation or connexion, from link to link, through a series of words, beginning and ending with such as are somewhat remote from each other, yet within the period. Thus_:--

EXAMPLES ANALYZED.

1. "Swift would say, 'The thing has not life enough in it to keep it sweet;' Johnson, 'The creature possesses not vitality sufficient to preserve it from putrefaction.'"--MATT. HARRISON, _on the English Language_, p. 102. ANALYSIS.--What is the general sense of this passage?

and what, the chain of connexion between the words _Swift_ and _putrefaction_? The period is designed to show, that Swift preferred words of Saxon origin; and Johnson, of Latin. It has in contrast two coordinate members, tacitly connected: the verb _would say_ being understood after _Johnson_, and perhaps also the particle _but_, after the semicolon.

_Swift_ is the subject of _would say_; and _would say_ introduces the clause after it, as what would be said. _The_ relates to _thing_; _thing_ is the subject of _has_; _has_, which is qualified by _not_, governs _life_; _life_ is qualified by the adjective _enough_, and by the phrase, _in it_; _enough_ is the prior term of _to_; _to_ governs _keep_; _keep_ governs _it_, which stands for _the thing_; and _it_, in lieu of _the thing_, is qualified by _sweet_. The chief members are connected either by standing in contrast as members, or by _but_, understood before _Johnson._ _Johnson_ is the subject of _would say_, understood: and this _would say_, again introduces a clause, as what would be said. _The_ relates to _creature_; _creature_ is the subject of _possesses_; _possesses_, which is qualified by _not_, governs _vitality_; _vitality_ is qualified by _sufficient_; _sufficient_ is the prior term of _to_; _to_ governs _preserve_; _preserve_ governs _it_, and is the prior term of _from_; and _from_ governs _putrefaction._

2. "There is one Being to whom we can look with a perfect conviction of finding that security, which nothing about us can give, and which nothing about us can take away."--GREENWOOD; _Wells's School Gram._, p. 192.[331]

ANALYSIS.--What is the general structure of this passage? and what, the chain of connexion "between the words _away_ and _is?"_ The period is a complex sentence, having four clauses, all connected together by relatives; the second, by _whom_, to the first and chief clause, _"There is one Being;"_ the third and the fourth, to the second, by _which_ and _which_; but the last two, having the same antecedent, _security_, and being coordinate, are also connected one to the other by _and._ As to "the chain of connexion," _Away_ relates to _can take_; _can take_ agrees with its nominative _nothing_, and governs _which_; _which_ represents _security_; _security_ is governed by _finding_; _finding_ is governed by _of_; _of_ refers back to _conviction_; _conviction_ is governed by _with_; _with_ refers back to _can look_; _can look_ agrees with _we_, and is, in sense, the antecedent of _to_; _to_ governs _whom_; _whom_ represents _Being_; and _Being_ is the subject of _is._

FIFTH METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

_The best and most thorough method of analysis is that of_ COMPLETE SYNTACTICAL PARSING; _a method which, for the sake of order and brevity, should ever be kept free from all mixture of etymological definitions or reasons, but which may be preceded or followed by any of the foregoing schemes of resolution, if the teacher choose to require any such preliminary or subsidiary exposition. This method is fully illustrated in the Twelfth Praxis below._