Part 299 (2/2)
[435] ”When the relative _who_ follows the preposition _than_, it must be used as in the _accusative_ case”--_Bucke's Grained the word _than_ to be _always a preposition_; for he contends against the co the case after it: ”It is, likewise, said, that the noht to follow the _preposition than_; because the verb _to be_ is understood after it; As, _You are taller than he_, and not _taller than hith, it would be, _You are taller than he is_; but since it is allowed, that the oblique case should follow _prepositions_; and since the coree of an adjective, and the particle _than_ have, certainly, between the the relation of one word to another, _they ought to require the oblique case_ of the pronoun following”--_Priestley's Gra would certainly be right; but the Doctor begs the question, by assu that it _is_ a preposition Williae, supposes that, ”ME _sapientior es_, may be translated, _Thou art wiser_ THAN ME” He also, in the salish Writers have considered _than_ as a Sign of an oblique Case; as, 'She suffers more THAN ME' Swift, ie hter THAN HER, As he was a Poet sublihter _than she was_, as he was a Poet sublimer _than I am_”--_Ward's Practical Gram_, p 112 These exaarded by Lowth as _bad English_ The construction, however, has a modern advocate in S W Clark, ill have the conjunctions _as, but, save, saving_, and _than_, as well as the adjectives _like, unlike, near, next, nigh_, and _opposite_, to be _prepositions_ ”After a _Comparative_ the _Preposition than_ is co _than_ all my other studies”--_Clark's Practical Gram_, p 178 ”_As, like, than_, &c, indicate a relation of _comparison_ Example 'Thou hast been _wiser_ all the while _than e undoubtedly requires _I_, and not _me_ Such at least is my opinion
[436] In respect to the _case_, the phrase _than who_ is similar to _than he, than they_, &c, as has been observed by rammarians; but, since _than_ is a conjunction, and _who_ or _whom_ is a relative, it is doubtful whether it can be strictly proper to set two such connectives together, be the case of the latter which it may See Note 5th, in the present chapter, below
[437] After _else_ or _other_, the preposition _besides_ is soested, it appears to be as good as _than_, or better: as, ”_Other_ words, _besides_ the preceding, in with capitals”--_Murray's Gram_, Vol i p 285 Or perhaps this preposition may be proper, whenever _else_ or _other_ denotes what is _additional_ to the object of contrast, and not exclusive of it; as, ”When we speak of any _other_ quantity _besides_ bare numbers”--_Tooke's Diversions_, Vol i, p 215 ”Because he had no _other_ father _besides_ God”--_Milton, on Christianity_, p 109 Though we so exalish_, and its interpretation still worse: ”'The secret was communicated to _more men than him_' That is, (when the ellipsis is duly supplied,) 'The secret was communicated to more _persons_ than _to_ him'”--Murray's Key, 12ersoll's Graain, does the following construction appear to be right: ”Now _shew_ me _another_ Popish rhymester _but he_”--DENNIS: _Notes to the Dunciad_, B ii, l 268 Say rather, ”Now _show_ me _an other_ popish rhymester _besides him_” Or thus: ”No me _any_ popish rhymester _except_ him” This too is questionable: ”Now pain_else besides_ warning”--_Wayland's Moral Science_, p 121 If ”warning” was here intended to be included with ”soht; if not, _besides_ should be _than_ Again: ”There is seldom any _other_ cardinal in Poland _but him_”--_Life of Charles XII_ Here ”_but him_”
should be either ”_besides hioverns the objective case, nor is it proper after _other_ ”Many _ht have been adduced”--_Nesbit's English Parsing_, p xv Here, in fact, no comparison is expressed; and therefore it is questionable, whether the word ”_more_” is allowably used
Like _else_ and _other_, when construed with _besides_, it signifies _additional_; and, as this idea is i before is really pleonastic In the sense above noticed, the word _beside_ is soh not very often; as, ”There are _other_ things which pass in the mind of man, _beside_ ideas”--_Sheridan's Elocution_, p 136
[438] A few of the exaht be corrected equally well by soeneral note against the improper omission of prepositions, of course includes those principles of grammar by which any particular prepositions are to be inserted So the exaiven in the tenth chapter of Etyht nearly all of them have been placed under the first note in this tenth chapter of Syntax But it was thought best to illustrate every part of this volurammar, out of the infinite number and variety hich our literature abounds
[439] ”The Rev _Joab Goldsrammars, as well as of what he called ”A New and Iil, &c,” all published in Philadelphia His first gralish Grae chosen to steal from the text of my Institutes, or supply matter of his own, about as often as to copy Murray His second is the Latin Grammar His third, which is entitled, ”_A Plain and Practical English Grammar_,” and dated 1831, is a book very different from the first, but equally inaccurate and worthless
In this book, the syntax of interjections stands thus: ”RULE 21 The interjections _O, oh_ and _ah_ are followed by _the objective case_ of a noun or pronoun, as: 'O me! ah n_ of an address, , as: O thou persecutor! Oh, ye hypocrites! O virtue, how ae 157
The inaccuracy of all this can scarcely be exceeded
[440] ”_Oh_ is used to express the emotion of _pain, sorrow_, or _surprise_ _O_ is used to express _wishi+ng, exclamation_, or a direct _address_ to a person”--_Lennie's Graraeneral seearded by other authors, that the propriety of it may be disputed Since _O_ and _oh_ are pronounced alike, or very nearly so, if there is no difference in their application, they are only differentthe same word, and one or the other of them is useless If there is a real difference, as I suppose there is, it ought to be better observed; and _O ralish Both _O_ and _oh_, as well as _ah_, were used in Latin by Terence, as reckoned an elegant writer; and histhem favours this distinction: and so do our own dictionaries, though Johnson and Walker do not draw it clearly, for _oh_ is as il, Ovid, and Horace, we find _O_ or _o_ used frequently, but nowhere _oh_ Yet this is no evidence of their sameness, or of the uselessness of the latter; but rather of their difference, and of the i thelish Boyer, in his Quarto Dictionary, confounds the ”O!” only by ”_Oh!_”
”OH! _ou_ HO!” by ”_Ho! Oh!_” and ”AH!” by ”_Oh! alas! well-a-day! ough! A!
ah! hah! ho!_” He would have done better to have made each one explain itself; and especially, not to have set down ”_ough!_” and ”_A!_” as English words which correspond to the French _ah!_
[441] This silence is sufficiently accounted for by _Murray's_; of whose work, most of the authors who have any such rule, are either piddling modifiers or servile copyists And Murray's silence on these matters, is in part attributable to the fact, that when he wrote his rerammar denied that nouns have any first person, or any objective case Of course he supposed that all nouns that were uttered after interjections, whether they were of the second person or of the third, were in the noave to nouns _two_ cases only, the nominative and the possessive And when he afterwards admitted the objective case of nouns, he did not alter his renorant of the case of any noun that is used in exclamation or invocation In his doctrine of two cases, he followed Dr Ash: fro: ”The _Interjections, O, Oh_, and _Ah_, require the _accusative_ case of a pronoun in the _first_ Person: as, O _me_, Oh _me_, Ah _me_: But the _Nominative_ in the _second_: as, O _thou_, O _ye_”--_Ash's Gram_, p 60 Or perhaps he had Bicknell's book, which was later: ”The _interjections O, oh_, and _ah_, require the accusative case of a pronoun in the _first_ person after them; as, _O, me! Oh, me! Ah, me!_ But the nominative case in the _second_ person; as, _O, thou that rulest!
O, ye rulers of this land!_”--_The Grammatical Wreath_, Part I, p 105
[442] See _2 Sam_, xix, 4; also xviii, 33 Peirce has many times _misquoted_ this text, or sorees either with himself or with the Bible! ”O! Absalom! my son!”--_Gram_, p 283 ”O Absalom! my son, my son! would _to_ God I had died for thee”--_Ib_, p 304 Pinneo also misquotes and perverts a part of it, thus: ”Oh, Absalom! my son”--_Primary Gram_, Revised Ed, p 57
[443] Of this example, Professor Bullions says, ”This will be allowed to be _a correct English sentence_, co to be supplied The phrase, '_being an expert dancer_,' is the subject of the verb '_does entitle_;' but the word '_dancer_' in that phrase is neither the subject of any verb, nor is governed by any word in the sentence”--_Eng Graular construction after the participle when the possessive case precedes, that I deny his first proposition, and declare the sentence _not_ ”to be correct English” But the Professor at length reasons himself into the notion, that this indeterminate ”_predicate_,” as he erroneously calls it, ”is properly in the _objective case_, and in parsing, may correctly be called the _objective indefinite_;” of which case, he says, ”The following are also exa a _director_ for life'
'By being a _diligent student, he_ soon acquired eminence in his profession'”--_Ib_, p 83 But ”_director_” and ”_student_” are herewith the pronoun _he_, which denotes the same person In the latter sentence, there is a very obvious transposition of the first five words
[444] Faulty as this exaant, or more finely turned, than this sentence It is neat, _clear_, and e one _ it Few sentences are to be found, more finished, or more happy”--_Lecture_ XX, p 201 See the _six_ corrections suggested in e whether or not they _spoil_ the sentence--G B
[445] This Note, as well as all the others, will by-and-by be amply illustrated by citations frorae as is, in reality, incorrigibly bad, will always appear so to the generality of readers Tastes, habits, principles, judgeained, many utterances are well received, that are neither well considered nor well understood When a professed critic utters what is incorrect beyond amendment, the fault is the more noteworthy, as his professions are louder, or his standing is more eminent In a recent preface, deliberately colish Grah and extensive acquaintance with their ue,”--in the studied preface of a learned writer, who has aiher institutions, but also a reference-book for _teachers_, which ive breadth and exactness to their views,”--I find a paragraph of which the following is a part: ”Unless men, at least occasionally, bestow their attention upon the science and the laws of the language, they are in soer, a the delicacy of their taste and giving sanction to vulgarisms, or to what is worse On this point, listen to the recent declarations of two leading men in the Senate of the United States, both of whoe in its power: 'In truth, I ue of the country has becoreatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates' And the other, in courteous response relish and _a_ parliamentary _vocabulary_, and I have never heard _a worse_, when circuate!'”--_Fowler's E Gra men,” the former was Daniel Webster, who, in a senatorial speech, in the spring of 1850,the style of oratory used in Congress But who replied, or what idea the ”courteous response,” as here given, can be said to convey, I do not know
The language seeible and solecistical; and, therefore, but a fair saent persons, whom I have asked to interpret it, think, as Webster had accused our Congress of corrupting the English language, the respondentin a greater degree,--of descending yet lower into the vileness of slang But this is hardly a probable conjecture Websterabuse of the tongue in the two Houses of Congress; but could it be ”courteous,” or proper, for the answerer to julish Lords and Coins with saying, ”There _is_ such _a thing_”--as if he , ”as _an_ English _and a_ parlia the article, he speaks of _two ”things”--two vocabularies_; then goes on, ”and I have never heard _a worse_!” A worse _what_? Does he mean ”_a worse vocabulary_?” If so, what sense has ”_vocabulary_?” And, again, ”a worse”
_than_ what? Where and what is this ”_thing_” which is so bad that the leading Senator has ”never heard a worse?” Is it solish and parliamentary?” If so, whose? If not, what else is it? Lest the wisdoh the defects of its syntax,--and lest er” of ”giving sanction to” _nonsense_,--it may be well for Professor Fowler, in his next edition, to present soe, which he values so highly!
An other example, in several respects still more remarkable,--a shorter one, into which an equally successful professor of grareater nu citation: ”The verb is so called, because it means _word_; and as there can be no sentence without it, it is called, emphatically, _the word_”--_Pinneo's analytical Gram_, p 14 This sentence, in which, perhaps, most readers will discover no error, has in fact faults of so many different kinds, that a critic must pause to determine under which of ht most fitly be presented for correction or criticisht be set down under my Note 5th to Rule 10th; for, in one or two instances out of the three, if not in all, the pronoun ”_it_” gives not the sa under this head es, made thus: ”The verb is so called, because _verb_ means _word_; and, as there can be no sentence without _a verb, this part of speech_ is called, emphatically, _the word_” Cobbett wisely says, ”Never put an _it_ upon paper without thinking well of what you are about”--_E Gram_, -- 196 But (2) the erroneous text, and this partial correction of it too,_Falsities_; for, in either form, each member affirms what is s; but no usage ever makes it, ”_emphatically_” or otherwise, a name for one of the classes called ”parts of speech;” nor is there nowadays any current usage in which ”_verb_ ht be put under Critical Note 6th, a _Absurdities_; for whoever will read it, as in fairness he should, taking the pronoun ”_it_” in the exact sense of its antecedent ”_the verb_,” will see that the import of each part is absurd--the whole, a two-fold absurdity (4) It_Self-Contradictions_; for, to teach at once that ”_the verb_ is _so_ called,” and ”is called, emphatically,”
_otherwise_,--naht be set down under Critical Note 9th, a examples of _Words Needless_; for the author's question is, ”Why is the verb so called?” and this may be much better answered in feords, thus: ”THE VERB is so called, because in French it is called _le verbe_ and in Latin, _verbuht be put under Critical Note 10th, as an exareatly bettered by the addition of some words, thus: ”The verb is so called, because [in French]
it [is called _le verbe_, and in Latin, _verbum_, which] means _word_: as there can be no sentence without _a verb, this_ [most important part of speech] is called, eht be put under Critical Note 11th, a _Literary Blunders_; for there is at least one blunder in each of its ht be set down under Critical Note 13th, as an exaraiven under Critical Note 16th, as a saible_; for it is scarcely possible to eliminate all its defects and retain its essentials
These instances rammar may lurk where they are least to be expected, in the didactic phraseology of professed masters of style or oratory, and enerality of hearers will discover nothing amiss
[446] As a mere assertion, this example is here sufficiently corrected; but, as a _definition_, (for which the author probably intended it,) it is deficient; and consequently, in that sense, is still inaccurate I would also observe that most of the subsequent examples under the present head, contain other errors than that for which they are here introduced; and, of some of them, the faults are, in my opinion, very many: for example, the several definitions of an _adverb_, cited below Lindley Murray's definition of this part of speech is not inserted a these, because I had elsewhere criticised that So too of his faulty definition of a _conjunction_ See the _Introduction_, Chap X paragraphs 26 and 28 See also _Corrections in the Key_, under Note 10th to Rule 1st