84; R.  C. Smith’s, 152; Weld’s, 2d Ed., 150.  The term sentence also is sometimes grossly misapplied.  Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases “James and William,” “Thomas and John,” and others similar, are called “sentences.”—­Smith’s New Gram., pp. 9 and 10.  So Weld absurdly writes as follows; “A whole sentence is frequently the object of a preposition; as, ‘The crime of being a young man.’ Being a young man, is the object of the preposition of.”—­Weld’s E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 42.  The phrase, “being a young man,” here depends upon “of;” but this preposition governs nothing but the participle “being.”  The construction of the word “man” is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all agreement consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but government is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality.  That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner.  Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times.  Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy:  “A word in parsing never governs the same word which it qualifies, or with which it agrees.”—­Practical Gram., p. 108.  Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus:  “The nominative case governs a verb.”—­Ib. p. 96.  Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative.  He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following untrue, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence:  “On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, an consequently agrees with, the preceding word.”—­Exercises, 8vo, ii, 74.  This he corrects thus:  On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, and consequently agrees with it.”—­Key, 8vo, ii, 204.  The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form.  See the same example, with the same variation of it, in Smith’s New Gram., p. 167; and, without the change, in Ingersoll’s, p. 233; and Fisk’s, 141.