CHAPTER I.

Some people speak of "so many spoonsfull," instead of "so many spoonfuls." The rule on this subject says: "Compounds ending in ful, and all those in which the principal word is put last, form the plural in the same manner as other nouns,—as 'handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls,'" &c., &c.

Logic will demonstrate the propriety of this rule. Are you measuring by a plurality of spoons? If so, "so many spoonsfull" must be the correct term; but if the process of measuring be effected by refilling the same spoon, then it becomes evident that the precise idea meant to be conveyed is, the quantity contained in the vessel by which it is measured, which is a "spoonful."

II.

It is a common mistake to speak of "a disagreeable effluvia." This word is effluvium in the singular, and effluvia in the plural. The same rule should be observed with automaton, arcanum, erratum, phenomenon, memorandum, and several others which are less frequently used, and which change the um or on into a, to form the plural. It is so common a thing, however, to say memorandums, that I fear it would sound a little pedantic, in colloquial style, to use the word memoranda; and it is desirable, perhaps, that custom should make an exception of this word, as well as of encomium, and allow two terminations to it, according to the taste of the speaker and the style of the discourse,—memorandums or memoranda, like encomiums or encomia.

III.

We have heard pulse and patience treated as pluralities, much to our astonishment.

IV.

It seems to be a position assumed by all grammarians, that their readers already understand the meaning of the word "case," as applied to nouns and pronouns; hence they never enter into a clear explanation of the simple term, but proceed at once to a discussion of its grammatical distinctions, in which it frequently happens that the student, for want of a little introductory explanation, is unable to accompany them. But I am not going to repeat to the scholar how the term "case" is derived from a Latin word signifying "to fall," and is so named because all the other cases fall or decline from the nominative, in order to express the various relations of nouns to each other,—which in Latin they do by a difference of termination, in English by the aid of prepositions,—and that an orderly arrangement of all these different terminations is called the declension of a noun, &c. I am not going to repeat to the scholar the things he already knows; but to you, my gentle readers, to whom Latin is still an unknown tongue, to whom grammars are become obsolete things, and grammatical definitions would be bewildering preliminaries, "more honored in the breach than in the observance,"—to you I am anxious to explain, in the clearest manner practicable, all the mysteries of this case, because it was a cruel perplexity to myself in days of yore. And I will endeavor to make my lecture as brief and clear as possible, requesting you to bear in mind that no knowledge is to be acquired without a little trouble; and that whosoever may consider it too irksome a task to exert the understanding for a short period, must be content to remain in inexcusable and irremediable ignorance. Though, I doubt not, when you come to perceive how great the errors are which you daily commit, you will not regret having sat down quietly for half an hour to listen to an unscholastic exposition of them.

We all understand the meaning of the word "case," as it is applied to the common affairs of life; but when we meet with it in our grammars, we view it as an abstruse term. We will not consent to believe that it means nothing more than position of affairs, condition, or circumstances, any one of which words might be substituted for it with equal propriety, if it were not indispensable in grammar to adhere strictly to the same term when we wish to direct the attention unerringly to the same thing, and to keep the understanding alive to the justness of its application; whilst a multiplicity of names to one thing would be likely to create confusion. Thus, if one were to say, "This is a very hard case," or "A singular case occurred the other day," or "That poor man's case is a very deplorable one," we should readily comprehend that by the word "case" was meant "circumstance" or "situation;" and when we speak, in the language of the grammar, of "a noun in the nominative case," we only mean a person or thing placed in such circumstances as to become merely named, or named as the performer of some action,—as "the man," or "the man walks." In both these sentences, "man" is in the nominative case; because in the first he is simply named, without reference to any circumstance respecting him, and in the second he is named as the performer of the act of walking mentioned. When we speak of a noun in the possessive case, we simply mean a person or thing placed under such circumstances as to become named as the possessor of something; and when we speak of a noun in the objective case, we only intend to express a person or thing standing in such a situation as to be, in some way or other, affected by the act of some other person or thing,—as "Henry teaches Charles." Here Henry is, by an abbreviation of terms, called the nominative case, (instead of the noun in the nominative case,) because he stands in that situation in which it is incumbent on us to name him as the performer of the act of teaching; and Charles is, by the same abbreviating license, called the objective case, because he is in such a position of affairs as to receive the act of teaching which Henry performs. I will now tell you how you may always distinguish the three cases. Read the sentence attentively, and understand accurately what the nouns are represented as doing. If any person or thing be represented as performing an action, that person or thing is a noun in the nominative case. If any person or thing be represented as possessing something, that person or thing is a noun in the possessive case. And if any person or thing be represented as neither performing nor possessing, it is a noun in the objective case, whether directly or indirectly affected by the action of the nominative; because, as we have in English but three cases, which contain the substance of the six Latin cases, whatever is neither nominative nor possessive must be objective. Here I might wander into a long digression on passive and neuter verbs, which I may seem to have totally overlooked in the principle just laid down; but I am not writing a grammar,—not attempting to illustrate the various ramifications of grammatical laws to people who know nothing at all about them,—any more than I am writing for the edification of the accomplished scholar, to whom purity of diction is already familiar. I am writing, chiefly, for that vast portion of the educated classes who have never looked into a grammar since their school days were over, but who have ingeniously hewn out for themselves a middle path between ignorance and knowledge, and to whom certain little hillocks in their way have risen up, under a dense atmosphere, to the magnitude of mountains. I merely wish to give to them, since they will not take the trouble to search for themselves, one broad and general principle, unclogged by exceptions, to guide them to propriety of speech; and should they afterwards acquire a taste for grammatical disputation, they will of course apply to more extensive sources for the necessary qualifications.

VI.

It is scarcely possible to commit any inaccuracy in the use of these cases when restricted to nouns, but in the application of them to pronouns a woful confusion often arises; though even in this confusion exists a marked distinction between the errors of the ill-bred and those of the well-bred man. To use the objective instead of the nominative is a vulgar error; to use the nominative instead of the objective is a genteel error. No person of decent education would think of saying, "Him and me are going to the play." Yet how often do we hear even well educated people say, "They were coming to see my brother and I,"—"The claret will be packed in two hampers for Mr. Smith and I,"—"Let you and I try to move it,"—"Let him and I go up and speak to them,"—"Between you and I," &c. &c.;—faults as heinous as that of the vulgarian who says, "Him and me are going to the play," and with less excuse. Two minutes' reflection will enable the scholar to correct himself, and a little exercise of memory will shield him from a repetition of the fault; but, for the benefit of those who may not be scholars, we will accompany him through the mazes of his reflections. Who are the persons that are performing the act of "coming to see"? "They." Then the pronoun they must stand in the nominative case. Who are the persons to whom the act of "coming to see" extends? "My brother and I." Then "my brother and I," being the objects affected by the act of the nominative, must be a noun and pronoun standing in the objective case; and as nouns are not susceptible of change on account of cases, it is only the pronoun which requires alteration to render the sentence correct: "They were coming to see my brother and me." The same argument is applicable to the other examples given. In the English language, the imperative mood of a verb is never conjugated with a pronoun in the nominative case, therefore, "Let you and I try to move it," "Let him and I go up and speak to them," are manifest improprieties. A very simple test may be formed by taking away the first noun or pronoun from the sentence altogether, and bringing the verb or preposition right against that pronoun which you use to designate yourself: thus, "They were coming to see I," "The claret will be packed in two hampers for I," "Let I try to move it," &c. By this means your own ear will correct you, without any reference to grammatical rules. And bear in mind that the number of nouns it may be necessary to press into the sentence will not alter the case respecting the pronouns.

"Between you and I" is as erroneous an expression as any. Change the position of the pronouns, and say, "Between I and you;" or change the sentence altogether, and say, "Between I and the wall there was a great gap;" and you will soon see in what case the first person should be rendered. "Prepositions govern the objective case," therefore it is impossible to put a nominative after a preposition without a gross violation of a rule which ought to be familiar to everybody.

VII.

The same mistake extends to the relative pronouns "who" and "whom." We seldom hear the objective case used either by vulgar or refined speakers. "Who did you give it to?" "Who is this for?" are solecisms of daily occurrence; and when the objective "whom" is used, it is generally put in the wrong place; as, "The person whom I expected would purchase that estate," "The man whom they intend shall execute that work." This intervening verb in each sentence, "I expected" and "they intend," coming between the last verb and its own nominative (the relative pronoun), has no power to alter the rule, and no right to violate it; but as the introduction of an intervening verb, in such situations, is likely to beguile the ear and confuse the judgment, it would be better to avoid such constructions altogether, and turn the sentence in a different way; as, "The person whom I expected to be the purchaser of that estate," "The man whom they intend to execute that work." If the reader will cut off the intervening verb, which has nothing to do with the construction of the sentence, except to mystify it, he will perceive at a glance the error and its remedy: "The person whom would purchase that estate," "The man whom shall execute that work."

VIII.

It is very easy to mistake the nominative when another noun comes between it and the verb, which is frequently the case in the use of the indefinite and distributive pronouns; as, "One of those houses were sold last week," "Each of the daughters are to have a separate share," "Every tree in those plantations have been injured by the storm," "Either of the children are at liberty to claim it." Here it will be perceived that the pronouns "one," "each," "every," "either," are the true nominatives to the verbs; but the intervening noun in the plural number, in each sentence, deludes the ear, and the speaker, without reflection, renders the verb in the plural instead of the singular number. The same error is often committed when no second noun appears to plead an apology for the fault; as, "Each city have their peculiar privileges," "Everybody has a right to look after their own interest," "Either are at liberty to claim it." This is the effect of pure carelessness.

IX.

There is another very common error, the reverse of the last mentioned, which is that of rendering the adjective pronoun in the plural number instead of the singular in such sentences as the following: "These kind of entertainments are not conducive to general improvement," "Those sort of experiments are often dangerous." This error seems to originate in the habit which people insensibly acquire of supposing the prominent noun in the sentence (such as "entertainments" or "experiments") to be the noun qualified by the adjective "these" or "those;" instead of which it is "kind," "sort," or any word of that description immediately following the adjective, which should be so qualified, and the adjective must be made to agree with it in the singular number. We confess it is not so agreeable to the ear to say, "This kind of entertainments," "That sort of experiments;" but it would be easy to give the sentence a different form, and say, "Entertainments of this kind," "Experiments of that sort," by which the requisitions of grammar would be satisfied, and those of euphony too.

But the grand fault, the glaring impropriety, committed by "all ranks and conditions of men," rich and poor, high and low, illiterate and learned,—except, perhaps, one in twenty,—and from which not even the pulpit or the bar is totally free,—is, the substitution of the active verb lay for the neuter verb lie (to lie down). The scholar knows that "active verbs govern the objective case," and therefore demand an objective case after them; and that neuter verbs will not admit an objective case after them, except through the medium of a preposition. He, therefore, has no excuse for his error, it is a wilful one; for him the following is not written. And here I may as well say, once for all, that whilst I would remind the scholar of his lapses, my instructions and explanations are offered only to the class which requires them.

"To lay" is an active transitive verb, like love, demanding an objective case after it, without the intervention of a preposition. "To lie" is a neuter verb, not admitting an objective case after it, except through the intervention of a preposition;—yet this "perverse generation" will go on substituting the former for the latter. Nothing can be more erroneous than to say, as people constantly do, "I shall go and lay down." The question which naturally arises in the mind of the discriminating hearer is, "What are you going to lay down,—money, carpets, plans, or what?" for, as a transitive verb is used, an object is wanted to complete the sense. The speaker means, in fact, to tell us that he (himself) is going to lie down, instead of which he gives us to understand that he is going to lay down or put down something which he has not named, but which it is necessary to name before we can understand the sentence; and this sentence, when completed according to the rules of grammar, will never convey the meaning he intends. One might as well use the verb "to put" in this situation, as the verb "to lay," for each is a transitive verb, requiring an objective case immediately after it. If you were to enter a room, and, finding a person lying on the sofa, were to address him with such a question as "What are you doing there?" you would think it ludicrous if he were to reply, "I am putting down;" yet it would not be more absurd than to say, "I am laying down;" but custom, whilst it fails to reconcile us to the error, has so familiarized us with it, that we hear it without surprise, and good breeding forbids our noticing it to the speaker. The same mistake is committed through all the tenses of the verb. How often are nice ears wounded by the following expressions,—"My brother lays ill of a fever,"—"The vessel lays in St. Katharine's Docks,"—"The books were laying on the floor,"—"He laid on a sofa three weeks,"—"After I had laid down, I remembered that I had left my pistols laying on the table." You must perceive that, in every one of these instances, the wrong verb is used; correct it, therefore, according to the explanation given; thus, "My brother lies ill of a fever,"—"The vessel lies in St Katherine's Docks,"—"The books were lying on the floor,"—"He lay on a sofa three weeks,"—"After I had lain down, I remembered that I had left my pistols lying on the table."

It is probable that this error has originated in the circumstance of the present tense of the verb "to lay" being conjugated precisely like the imperfect tense of the verb "to lie," for they are alike in orthography and sound, and different only in meaning; and in order to remedy the evil which this resemblance seems to have created, I have conjugated at full length the simple tenses of the two verbs, hoping the exposition may be found useful; for it is an error which must be corrected by all who aspire to the merit of speaking their own language well.

Verb Active.
To lay.
Present tense.

I lay
Thou layest		money,
He lays		carpets,
We lay		plans,—any
You lay		thing.
They lay

Imperfect tense.

I laid
Thou laidest		money,
He laid		carpets,
We laid		plans,—any
You laid		thing.
They laid

Present Participle, Laying.

Perfect Participle, Laid.

Verb Neuter.
To lie.
Present tense.

I lie
Thou liest		down,
He lies		too long,
We lie		on a sofa,—any
You lie		where.
They lie

Imperfect tense.

I lay
Thou layest		down,
He lays		too long,
We lay		on a sofa,—any
You lay		where.
They lay

Present Participle, Lying,

Perfect Participle, Lain.

In such sentences as these, wherein the verb is used reflectively,—"If I lay myself down on the grass I shall catch cold," "He laid himself down on the green sward,"—the verb "to lay" is with propriety substituted for the verb "to lie;" for the addition of the emphatic pronoun myself, or himself, constituting an objective case, and coming immediately after the verb, without the intervention of a preposition, renders it necessary that the verb employed should be active, not neuter, because "active verbs govern the objective case." But this is the only construction in which "to lay" instead of "to lie" can be sanctioned by the rules of grammar.

XI.

The same confusion often arises in the use of the verbs sit and set, rise and raise. Sit is a neuter verb, set an active one; yet how often do people most improperly say, "I have set with him for hours," "He set on the beach till the sun went down," "She set three nights by the patient's bedside." What did they set,—potatoes, traps, or what? for as an objective case is evidently implied by the use of an active verb, an object is indispensable to complete the sense. No tense whatever of the verb "to sit" is rendered "set," which has but one word throughout the whole verb, except the active participle "setting;" and "sit" has but two words, "sit" and "sat," except the active participle "sitting;" therefore it is very easy to correct this error by the help of a little attention.

XII.

Raise is the same kind of verb as set,—active-transitive, requiring an objective case after it; and it contains only two words, raise and raised, besides the active participle raising. Rise is a neuter verb, not admitting an objective case. It contains two words, rise and rose; besides the two participles, rising and risen. It is improper, therefore, to say, "He rose the books from the floor," "He rises the fruit as it falls," "After she had risen the basket on her head," &c. In all such cases use the other verb raise. It occurs to me, that if people would take the trouble to reckon how many different words a verb contains, they would be in less danger of mistaking them. "Lay" contains two words, "lay" and "laid," besides the active participle "laying." "Lie" has also two words, "lie" and "lay," besides the two participles "lying" and "lain;" and from this second word "lay" arises all the confusion I have had to lament in the foregoing pages.

XIII.

To the scholar I would remark the prevalent impropriety of adopting the subjunctive instead of the indicative mood, in sentences where doubt or uncertainty is expressed, although the former can only be used in situations in which "contingency and futurity" are combined. Thus, a gentleman, giving an order to his tailor, may say, "Make me a coat of a certain description, if it fit me well I will give you another order;" because the "fit" alluded to is a thing which the future has to determine. But when the coat is made and brought home, he cannot say, "If this cloth be good I will give you another order," for the quality of the cloth is already determined; the future will not alter it. It may be good, it may be bad, but whatever it may be it already is; therefore, as contingency only is implied, without futurity, it must be rendered in the indicative mood, "If this cloth is good," &c. We may with propriety say, "If the book be sent in time, I shall be able to read it to-night," because the sending of the book is an event which the future must produce; but we must not say, "If this book be sent for me, it is a mistake," because here the act alluded to is already performed,—the book has come. I think it very likely that people have been beguiled into this error by the prefix of the conjunction, forgetting that conjunctions may be used with the indicative as well as with the subjunctive mood.

XIV.

Some people use the imperfect tense of the verb "to go," instead of the past participle, and say, "I should have went," instead of "I should have gone." This is not a very common error, but it is a very great one; and I should not have thought it could come within the range of the class for which this book is written, but that I have heard the fault committed by people of even tolerable education. One might as well say, "I should have was at the theatre last night," instead of "I should have been at the theatre," &c., as say, "I should have went" instead of "I should have gone."

XV.

Others there are who invert this error, and use the past participle of the verb "to do" instead of a tense of the verb, saying, "I done" instead of "I did." This is inadmissible. "I did it," or "I have done it," is a phrase correct in its formation, its application being, of course, dependent on other circumstances.

XVI.

There are speakers who are too refined to use the past (or perfect) participle of the verbs "to drink," "to run," "to begin," &c., and substitute the imperfect tense, as in the verb "to go." Thus, instead of saying, "I have drunk," "he has run," "they have begun," they say, "I have drank" "he has ran," "they have began" &c. These are minor errors, I admit; still, nice ears detect them.

XVII.

I trust it is unnecessary to warn any of my readers against adopting the flagrant vulgarity of saying "don't ought," and "hadn't ought," instead of "ought not." It is also incorrect to employ no for not in such phrases as, "If it is true or no (not)," "Is it so or no (not)?"

XVIII.

Many people have an odd way of saying, "I expect," when they only mean "I think," or "I conclude;" as, "I expect my brother is gone to Richmond to-day," "I expect those books were sent to Paris last year." This is wrong. Expect can relate only to future time, and must be followed by a future tense, or a verb in the infinitive mood; as, "I expect my brother will go to Richmond to-day," "I expect to find those books were sent to Paris last year." Here the introduction of a future tense, or of a verb in the infinitive mood, rectifies the grammar without altering the sense; but such a portion of the sentence must not be omitted in expression, as no such ellipsis is allowable.

XIX.

The majority of speakers use the imperfect tense and the perfect tense together, in such sentences as the following,—"I intended to have called on him last night," "I meant to have purchased one yesterday,"—or a pluperfect tense, and a perfect tense together I have sometimes heard, as, "You should have written to have told her." These expressions are illogical, because, as the intention to perform an act must be prior to the act contemplated, the act itself cannot with propriety be expressed by a tense indicating a period of time previous to the intention. The three sentences should be corrected thus, placing the second verb in the infinitive mood, "I intended to call on him last night," "I meant to purchase one yesterday," "You should have written to tell her."

But the imperfect tense and the perfect tense are to be combined in such sentences as the following, "I remarked that they appeared to have undergone great fatigue;" because here the act of "undergoing fatigue" must have taken place previous to the period in which you have had the opportunity of remarking its effect on their appearance; the sentence, therefore, is both grammatical and logical.

XX.

Another strange perversion of grammatical propriety is to be heard occasionally in the adoption of the present tense of the verb "to have," most probably instead of the past participle, but in situations in which the participle itself would be a redundance; such as, "If I had have known," "If he had have come according to appointment," "If you had have sent me that intelligence," &c. Of what utility is the word "have" in the sentence at all? What office does it perform? If it stands in place of any other word, that other word would still be an incumbrance; but the sentence being complete without it, it becomes an illiterate superfluity. "If I had have known that you would have been there before me, I would have written to you to have waited till I had have come." What a construction from the lips of an educated person! and yet we do sometimes hear this slip-slop uttered by people who are considered to "speak French and Italian well," and who enjoy the reputation of being "accomplished!"

XXI.

It is amusing to observe the broad line of demarcation which exists between vulgar bad grammar and genteel bad grammar, and which characterizes the violation of almost every rule of syntax. The vulgar speaker uses adjectives instead of adverbs, and says, "This letter is written shocking;" the genteel speaker uses adverbs instead of adjectives, and says, "This writing looks shockingly." The perpetrators of the latter offence may fancy they can shield themselves behind the grammatical law which compels the employment of an adverb, not an adjective, to qualify a verb, and behind the first rule of syntax, which says "a verb must agree with its nominative." But which is the nominative in the expression alluded to? Which performs the act of looking,—the writing or the speaker? To say that a thing looks when we look at it, is an idiom peculiar to our language, and some idioms are not reducible to rules; they are conventional terms which pass current, like bank notes, for the sterling they represent, but must not be submitted to the test of grammatical alchymy. It is improper, therefore, to say, "The queen looks beautifully," "The flowers smell sweetly," "This writing looks shockingly;" because it is the speaker that performs the act of looking, smelling, &c., not the noun looked at; and though, by an idiomatical construction necessary to avoid circumlocution, the sentence imputes the act to the thing beheld, the qualifying word must express the quality of the thing spoken of, adjectively, instead of qualifying the act of the nominative understood, adverbially. What an adjective is to a noun, an adverb is to a verb; an adjective expresses the quality of a thing, and an adverb the manner of an action. Consider what it is you wish to express, the quality of a thing, or the manner of an action, and use an adjective or adverb accordingly. But beware that you discriminate justly; for though you cannot say, "The queen looked majestically in her robes," because here the act of looking is performed by the spectator, who looks at her, you can and must say, "The queen looked graciously on the petitioner," "The queen looked mercifully on his prayer," because here the act of looking is performed by the queen. You cannot say, "These flowers smell sweetly," because it is you that smell, and not the flowers; but you can say, "These flowers perfume the air deliciously," because it is they which impart the fragrance, not you. You cannot say, "This dress looks badly," because it is you that look, not the dress; but you can say, "This dress fits badly," because it is the dress that performs the act of fitting either well or ill. There are some peculiar idioms which it would be better to avoid altogether, if possible; but if you feel compelled to use them, take them as they are,—you cannot prune and refine them by the rules of syntax, and to attempt to do so shows ignorance as well as affectation.

XXII.

There is a mistake often committed in the use of the adverbs of place, hence, thence, whence. People are apt to say, "He will go from thence to-morrow," &c. The preposition "from" is included in these adverbs, therefore it becomes tautology in sense when prefixed to them.

XXIII.

"Equally as well" is a very common expression, and a very incorrect one; the adverb of comparison, "as," has no right in the sentence. "Equally well," "Equally high," "Equally dear," should be the construction; and if a complement be necessary in the phrase, it should be preceded by the preposition "with," as, "The wall was equally high with the former one," "The goods at Smith's are equally dear with those sold at the shop next door," &c. "Equally the same" is tautology.

XXIV.

"Whether," sometimes an adverb, sometimes a conjunction, is a word that plainly indicates a choice of things (of course I cannot be supposed to mean a freedom of choice); it is highly improper, therefore, to place it, as many do, at the head of each part of a sentence, as, "I have not yet made up my mind whether I shall go to France, or whether I shall remain in England." The conjunction should not be repeated, as it is evident the alternative is expressed only in the combination of the two parts of the sentence, not in either of them taken separately; and the phrase should stand thus, "I have not yet made up my mind whether I shall go to France or remain in England."

XXV.

There is an awkwardness prevalent amongst all classes of society in such sentences as the following: "He quitted his horse, and got on to a stage coach," "He jumped on to the floor," "She laid it on to a dish," "I threw it on to the fire." Why use two prepositions where one would be quite as explicit, and far more elegant? Nobody, at the present day, would think of saying, "He came up to London for to go to the exhibition," because the preposition "for" would be an awkward superfluity. So is "to" in the examples given; in each of which there is an unwieldiness of construction which reminds one of the process of glueing, or fastening, one thing "on to" another. Expunge the redundant preposition, and be assured, gentle reader, the sentence will still be found "an elegant sufficiency." There are some situations, however, in which the two prepositions may with propriety be employed, though they are never indispensable, as, "I accompanied such a one to Islington, and then walked on to Kingsland." But here two motions are implied, the walking onward, and the reaching of a certain point. More might be said to illustrate the distinction, but we believe it will not be deemed necessary.

XXVI.

There seems to be a natural tendency to deal in a redundance of prepositions. Many people talk of "continuing on." I should be glad to be informed in what other direction it would be possible to continue.

XXVII.

It is most illiterate to put the preposition of after the adverb off, as, "The satin measured twelve yards before I cut this piece off of it," "The fruit was gathered off of that tree." Many of my readers will consider such a remark quite unnecessary in this volume; but many others, who ought to know better, must stand self-condemned on reading it.

XXVIII.

There is a false taste extant for the preposition "on" instead of "of" in songs, poetry, and many other situations in which there is still less excuse for borrowing the poetic license; such as, "Wilt thou think on me, love?" "I will think on thee, love," "Then think on the friend who once welcomed it too," &c., &c. But this is an error chiefly to be met with among poetasters and melodramatic speakers.

XXIX.

Some people add a superfluous preposition at the end of a sentence,—"More than you think for." This, however, is an awkwardness rarely committed by persons of decent education.

XXX.

That "prepositions govern the objective case" is a golden rule of grammar; and if it were only well remembered, it would effectually correct that mistake of substituting the nominative for the objective pronoun, which has been complained of in the preceding pages. In using a relative pronoun in the objective case, it is more elegant to put the preposition before than after it, thus, "To whom was the order given?" instead of, "Whom was the order given to?" Indeed, if this practice were to be invariably adopted, it would obviate the possibility of confounding the nominative with the objective case, because no man would ever find himself able to utter such a sentence as, "To who was this proposal made?" though he might very unconsciously say, "Who was this proposal made to?" and the error would be equally flagrant in both instances.

XXXI.

There is a great inaccuracy connected with the use of the disjunctive conjunctions or and nor, which seem to be either not clearly understood, or treated with undue contempt by persons who speak in the following manner: "Henry or John are to go there to-night," "His son or his nephew have since put in their claim," "Neither one nor the other have the least chance of success." The conjunctions disjunctive "or" and "nor" separate the objects in sense, as the conjunction copulative unites them; and as, by the use of the former, the things stand forth separately and singly to the comprehension, the verb or pronoun must be rendered in the singular number also; as, "Henry or John is to go there to-night," "His son or his nephew has since put in his claim," &c. If you look over the sentence, you will perceive that only one is to do the act, therefore only one can be the nominative to the verb.

XXXII.

Many people improperly substitute the disjunctive "but" for the comparative "than," as, "The mind no sooner entertains any proposition, but it presently hastens to some hypothesis to bottom it on."—Locke. "No other resource but this was allowed him." "My behavior," says she, "has, I fear, been the death of a man who had no other fault but that of loving me too much."—Spectator.

XXXIII.

Sometimes a relative pronoun is used instead of a conjunction, in such sentences as the following: "I don't know but what I shall go to Brighton to-morrow," instead of, "I don't know but that," &c.

XXXIV.

Sometimes the disjunctive but is substituted for the conjunction that, as, "I have no doubt but he will be here to-night." Sometimes for the conjunction if, as, "I shouldn't wonder but that was the case." And sometimes two conjunctions are used instead of one, as, "If that I have offended him," "After that he had seen the parties," &c. All this is very awkward indeed, and ought to be avoided, and might easily be so by a little attention.