Or won to what may work his utter loss,
For whom all this was made, all this will soon
Follow,”—Milton.
This seems to be the only example in which the poet has transgressed this rule; and in several instances, in which he has observed it, Bentley would erroneously substitute the objective case.
Rule XIX.—Prepositions are joined with the objective case, or govern nouns and pronouns in the accusative, as, “he ran to me,” “he was loved by us.”
Note 1.—This rule is violated in such expressions as these, “Who servest thou under?” “Who do you speak to?” for the syntactical arrangement is, “thou servest under who?” “thou speakest to who?” instead of “under whom?” “to whom?”
Note 2.—The preposition is frequently separated from its regimen, as, “Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with,” i.e. “with whom I am much delighted.”
Note 3.—The prepositions to and for are often understood, as, “he gave me a book,” “he told me the news:” i.e. “he gave to me,” “he told to me.”
Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the pronouns, me, thee, &c., may be considered to be in the dative case, as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of their respective pronouns, and in their form include to, as, “woe is to me.” This phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the same as, “wae is me,” in which me is a dative case.
The preposition by is also, in a few colloquial expressions, omitted, as, “he went across the bridge,” “he crossed the bridge,” for “he crossed (the river) by the bridge.”