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.
V.
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.