Animadversions upon Lillies grammar, or Lilly scanned An extract of grammaticall problemes. Gathered out of the inquiries, and disputes of the most judicious grammarians. Set downe by way of question, and answere. ...

Of the third Concord.

If the Relatiue agree with the Ante∣cedent, in Gender, Number, and Per∣son; how is it that we finde in Terence. Vbi est ille scelus, qui me perdidit? Qui the Relatiue is of the mascul. gen∣der, and scelus the Antecedent of the neuter?

Scelus is here put for scelestus, as elsewhere Senium for Senex by a Me∣tonymie of the adjunct; so the sense is made good: or qui by the figure Hyponaea hath reference to scelestus, to bee vnderstood in scelus by the iudi∣cious Readers.

In that example; Est locus in car∣cere, quod Tullianum appellatur, and the like; as, Bene audiri, qui est recte factorū fructus omnes ferre volumus: and; Hodie, quae est altera dies Pen∣tecostes, venit ad me nuntius, where the Relatiue put betweene two Substan∣tiues, agrees with the latter, is the con∣struction proper to the Latines?

No: it is an imitation of the greeks,

who haue the same construction. So Isocrates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and thus Tully. Ne ap∣pellaueris consilium, quae vis, ac necessitas appellanda est.

What doe you thinke of that example: Nostros vidisti flentis ocellos?

In it there is a solaecisme, or at least a solaecophanes, the Poet should haue said regularly, if his verse would haue suffered him, either nostros flentium, or meos flentis, to make vp the constru∣ction: we must vnderstand in nostros, meos, in meos mei. vide Goclen. Prob. Gram. l. 3. p. 131.

Is Imperium, & dignitas quae pe∣tijsti; a fit example of that rule in the English Syntaxis: many Antecedents singular hauing a coniunction copulatiue betweene them, will haue a relatiue plu∣rall, which relatiue shall agree with the Antecedent of the most worthy Gender?

No: for here the relatiue agrees with the antecedent of the most vn∣worthy gender, viz. the Neuter. A∣gaine, if this bee a true example, that exception subjoyned of Things with∣out

life is superfluous, for it is an ex∣ception to it selfe; for to speake truth, to that rule doth this example apper∣taine Imperium, and Dignitas being things without life: of that rule ma∣ny Antecedents, &c. this or the like example should haue beene giuen. Rex, & Regina, quos tu beatos praedicas, sunt mortales.

Is that example; Felix quem fa∣ciunt aliena pericula cautum, properly rendred in English?

No: it should not haue beene ren∣dred; Happy is he &c. to beware: for cautum is not here the first supine of caueo, neither can be (for it is not put after a verbe, signifying mouing to a place, but an adjectiue) the verse should therefore haue beene thus translated: Happy is hee whom others harmes make wary.