we may possess. It is, therefore, a clear waste of time to read over his writings. He is unintelligible; and unintelligibility is the greatest fault that a writer could have.

170. How easily all this confusion would have been avoided, if the first person instead of the third, had been used; though, to be sure, this would not have been quite so pompous sounding at the opening.

171.I appeal to any white man to say, if ever he entered my cabin hungry, and I gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked, and I clothed him not." If this be not as elegant as the other, it is certainly a hundred times more clear; and clearness, as Mr. Cobbett says, is the first thing that should be attended to.

"In

172. Be careful never to write a personal pronoun without considering fully what noun it will, upon a reading of the sentence, be found to stand for. Mr. Cobbett says: the Lord's Prayer, in the English Church Service, we say, Our Father, which art in Heaven.' In the American Li. turgy, this error has been corrected; and THEY say, Our Father who art in Heaven.' "

173. Now, what does this they stand for? where is there any plural noun which this pronoun can correctly be in the place of? there is none in the sentence. We cannot call liturgy a they; and this is the only noun that the pronoun can seem to represent. American is not a noun; it is an adjective; and a pronoun is never used for, or in the place of an adjective. And even if American was a noun, the pronoun would not be correctly employed; because the former is singular, and the latter plural. Mr. Cobbett has made a terrible blunder here. He means, "In the American Liturgy this error has been corrected. The Americans say, 'Our Father who art in Heaven.'" This is no

doubt what he wished to say; but the sentence, as he has written it, is nonsense: "The American Liturgy THEY say."

174. When two or more nouns are connected by an agreeing conjunction, and when a personal pronoun is made to stand for them, care must be taken that this pronoun agree with them in number. You must not say,

66

economy and industry are praiseworthy in any one; but it is a mere nothing when compared with honesty and sobriety;" because you would here make it, third person singular, stand for economy and industry, the third person plural. They instead of it should be used.

66

an

175. Mr. Murray, in his English Grammar,says, adverb is a part of speech joined to a verb, an adjective, and sometimes to another adverb, to express some quality or circumstance respecting it." Here is a personal pronoun, which of course must stand for some noun or nouns. Now, which is the noun, that this personal pronoun it stands for? Why, by examining you find that there are three nouns, a verb, an adjective, and an adverb, which it stands for. So that here is another fine blunder in a grammar book. Them should have been used in place of it.

176. But if the nouns be connected by a disagreeing conjunction, like or, the pronoun must be in the singular; as, "give me an apple, a peach, or a plum, and I will eat it."

177. Nouns of multitude, such as Congress, Association, Company, Mob, Legislature, Committee, Board of Managers, and so forth, may have pronouns to agree with them either in the singular or the plural number. Speaking of Congress we can say, "it has adjourned;" or, "they have adjourned." Of an Association, "it passed a resolution ;" or, "they passed a resolution." We can use the pronoun just as we may think best. If we wish to speak of the members as individuals, acting in that capacity, we ought to say they; but if we wish to speak of them as forming a body, which is singular, and which as one body, does something, we use the singular number, and say it. But we must be consistent. We must not call a body of persons it in one part of a sentence, and they in another. Indeed, we should never use the singular pronoun in one place, and the plural in another, when applying to the same noun, though several sentences intervene. Speaking of Congress, we must not say, "they this session enacted some beneficial laws; but it spent a good deal of time in doing nothing. Instead of gratifying private animosities by in. dulging in personal attacks, how much better would it be,

if the members would consider that the public weal was the only object which they were elected to promote. He who is the representative of a free people, holds one of the most honourable offices on earth. And knowing this, he should always bear in mind that he is expected to act in a manner worthy of the high station he fills. It would seem, when we look at the materials of which Congress is composed, that it should be the greatest concentration of refinement, talent and virtue, in the land. They are brought together from all parts of the union. They are the chosen citizens of each part, who are supposed to be the most capable of discharging the duties of the office, with honor to themselves, and satisfaction to their constituents; and it is, indeed, a source of the deepest regret, if the conduct of these persons cannot be held up as an example to others." 178. To make these sentences correct, the first they should be it, and the next to the last they should be the members.

179. The same consistency must be observed with regard to the gender of pronouns. The only terminations to designate gender, are in the third person singular : he, she, it. The first, you know, is the masculine, the second, the feminine, and the last, the neuter. We, however, by a figure of speech, frequently give to things which are neuter, the distinguishments of sex. We often call a nation she; a ship she; the sun he; death he; but we must be careful not to call a nation, or any thing else, she in one part of a sentence, and it in another.

180. When we do not know the gender of a living crea. ture by the name that is given to it, we make use of the neuter pronoun, though we are confidant that the creature must be either masculine or feminine. If a child be sleeping in a cradle, and I do not know its sex, I will ask, "How old is it?" but if I know it to be a male child, I will ask, "How old is he?"

181. The personal pronouns, when in the possessive, or the objective case, must agree in number and gender with their correspondent nouns or pronouns : " William attends balls regularly two nights in each week; and as a consequence, is unable to attend to his business, on the following

days. But George and James spend their evenings at home, or at the house of a friend, and retire to bed at an early hour. They are, therefore, very seldom incapable of attending to their interests. Mary, their sister, keeps house for them; and by her frugality and good management, assists in producing that competence of wealth which will one day be theirs." If nouns of both genders come before pronouns, you must be careful not to use a pronoun which will cause a confusion of meaning: "A man or woman cannot be too careful of his reputation." This will not do: neither will it do to say, "a man or woman cannot be too careful of their reputation." You must in all such instances, though it may sometimes produce a very hammering style, repeat the pronoun; as, "a man or woman cannot be too careful of his, or her reputation." This rule also holds good with regard to nouns of both numbers; as, "any person or persons violating this law, shall upon his or their conviction thereof, pay a fine of one hundred dollars; and should the offence be by him or them repeated, an additional sum of fifty dollars, shall be the penalty."

182. In order to prove to you the necessity of attending to the rule that pronouns in their possessive case, and also their objective, must agree in person, gender and number, with the nouns for which they stand, I will give you a sentence from an author who ranks high with the American public. The second sentence of the inaugural oration of Mr. John Quincy Adams, delivered upon the occasion of his being installed professor of rhetoric, and oratory in Harvard University, runs thus: "In forming an estimate of the moral or intellectual merits of many a person, whose name is recorded in the volumes of history, their virtues and vices are so nearly balanced, that their station in the ranks of fame, has never been precisely assigned, and their reputation, even after death, vibrates upon the hinges of events with which they have little or no perceptible connection."

183. This is, as I told you a minute ago, but the second sentence of Mr. Adams' course of lectures upon the subject of rhetoric; and it certainly speaks but ill for the correctness of his future lectures, that a short sentence, at such a place, should contain five errors! You do not, per

66

haps, now see these errors; but just follow me a moment, and you need not possess the eye of an Argus to detect them: When we say, 66 many a person," we mean many persons individually; we mean one person of many; we mean any one person out of a hundred, or thousand, or any large number; and of course, then, this many a person is in the singular number, and should have a pronoun in the singular number to stand for it. But Mr. Adams has used a pronoun in the plural number to stand for it; and that too, not only once, but four times! The thrice used their, should have been each time, his; and the they should have been he. There is, moreover, another error in the sentence. It is not an error in the pronoun; it is one in the verb; and therefore it may be out of place to notice it here; but as I have commenced the correction of the sentence, I must endeavor to finish it: "Their reputation, even after death, vibrates upon the hinges of events, with which they have little or no perceptible connection." "They have," who have? why, the person represented by "many a person." Well, passing by the error of the pronoun, let me ask, how a person can have connection with events after his death? His reputation may have connection with events after his death; but he, himself, cannot; and if Mr. Adams wished to say that the person's reputation had connection with events, he committed another error in the pronoun; for the they then stands in the place of reputation, and should consequently have been it. But this is not what Mr. Adams meant; he meant the person himself, and not his reputation; or otherwise, the intended meaning would be senseless. Having proved, then, that a person has no connec. tion with events after his death, and that the reputation of a person is not what is meant in the sentence as having connection with events after his death, where does the error lie? Why, it lies in the time; the have after they, should have been, has had; and this would at once have put matters to rights. The sentence, to be correct, must run thus : "In forming an estimate of the moral or intellectual merits of many a person, whose name is recorded in the volumes of history, his virtues and vices are so nearly balanced, that his station in the ranks of fame has never been pre