of Broad and Vine street." But he says nothing like this; and before you go any further, I will just inform you, that this editor is considered by some persons, one of the best grammarians in Philadelphia; that he is called by some of the other editors, the "grand judge❞ upon all matters relating to English grammar; that he loses no opportunity to display his knowledge; and that in the very first sentence following the one that I have quoted, he undertakes to prove by the rules of English grammar (!!) that his decision must be the only correct one. Here is a beautiful picture! One that I trust you may look upon with some advantage. The editor undertakes to correct what he thinks is a violation of the rules of grammar, and yet, in this very undertaken correction, there is a thousand times greater violation of grammatical rules, than can be found in what is objected to!

193. I have given you one of the examples, now let me give you the other. The same question, with the trifling exception of the names of the streets being different, is proposed to another editor, by another correspondent. This correspondent wishes to know "which is the proper way to use the term-corner of Chesnut and Fifth streets? whether the last word should be in the plural, as above written, or in the singular, street?" The editor, after complimenting the other editor, already mentioned, for his knowledge, replies by saying, "in this case the plural is correct; but there is a similar phrase-such as in Chesnut above Fifth street—in which it is often used erroneously." "It is often used erroneously;" what is? what does the it here stand for? does it stand for phrase? at first we might think that it did; but upon reflection, we find that it cannot: "there is a similar phrase, in which it is often used erroneously;" that is, "there is a similar phrase, in which phrase the phrase is often used erroneously." No, no; this would never do. Does it, then, stand for sentence? Perhaps it does; but let us see: "there is a similar phrase, in which the sentence is often used erroneously." This will not do, either. A sentence cannot be used in a phrase; that is, as forming part of a phrase; a phrase may be used in a sentence, but a sentence never in a phrase.

What, then does it stand for? After a great deal of puzzling, we at last come to the conclusion, that it must stand for plural; and that what the editor wished to say, was, "In this case the plural is correct; but there is a similar phrase, such as in Chesnut above Fifth street, in which the plural is often erroneously used." However, I do not think so much of this error, because the editor who was the author of it, has no great pretensions to a knowledge of English grammar. He does not set himself up as the grammatical umpire of all states north of the Potomac and south of the Connecticut. If he be not learned, he is at least modest; and this is more than every one is.

194. After these two examples, I cannot press two strongly upon your mind, this caution: never put an it upon paper without reflecting fully upon what you are doing. There must be a noun, or pronoun, for which this it clearly stands, or what you write will be nonsense.

195. We have now done with the personal pronouns. Next come the Relative Pronouns. You know that these are such as relate to nouns or personal pronouns. They do not stand so directly for the noun as the personals do but generally have an antecedent to which they relate; and hence arises their name. But this I have already told you in paragraphs 64, 65, 66, and 67, which please to see.

196. The relative who, becomes, as you already know, whose in the possessive case, and whom in the objective. Errors are very frequently committed by not attending to these variations, particularly the latter. When either a verb or a preposition is connected with the pronoun, the objective case, and not the nominative, must be used. "To who did you give the book? who did I strike?" These can be readily detected But, as in the case of personal pronouns, when the relatives are placed at a great distance from the verbs or prepositions which determine the case, our ear affords no assistance: "Who, in endeavouring to free myself from the grasp of these men, did I strike? Who do you imagine the words were addressed to?" we had no guide but our ear, it is likely that we would consider these relatives in the nominative case, properly used. But as we have rules, which, unlike our ear, are

If

not liable to deceive us, we readily perceive that these nominative relatives are wrongly employed. Place the verb which occurs in the first instance, and the preposition which occurs in the second, close beside the relatives, and you will instantly detect the errors. "Who did I strike? To who were the words addressed." You see that in both instances whom, and not who, should be used.

197. You will here have to employ your reasoning faculties, in order to tell when to say whom, and when who:"Whom, while I was endeavouring to free myself from the grasp of these men, struck me such a severe blow? Whom do you imagine was the person whom the words were addressed to?" The first and second of these relatives should be who; as, who struck me; who was the person. The first must be in the nominative, because the person represented, is the actor, the person that does some. thing, and the actor, or person that does something, is the nominative. The second must also be in the nominative, because the person represented, is the one that was something; and a person that was something, or is something, is always in the nominative. This I have already more than once told you.

198. Nearly all writers, when they have occasion to use the relative after than, put that relative in the objective form; as, "Washington, than whom ro one could be more firm in his purposes, or less liable to droop under the load of misfortunes, that were, for a time, so heavily heaped upon him." This whom should be who; because it relates to a person that is in the nominative case, and not the objective. Washington, no one could be more firm in his purposes, than who was, or than he was. This error is one which you will see every day committed; but you have only to think as you write, and you will be in no danger of falling into it.

66

199. The relative That, is, as you were told in the Letter on the etymology of pronouns, applied indiscriminately to rational and irrational creatures; but it has no possessive case; for we cannot say, "the horse that leg was broken." And no change to denote the other two cases, as you will here see: "The horse that I kicked; and the horse that kicked me. The man that I respect; and the man that

respects me There are, however, occasions when that ought not to be used in the place of who or whom: "The President who commenced the work of reform, and his successor that completed it." Better make both who. "The man that is compelled to labour from daylight till dark, to obtain a single dollar; who has a wife and several children dependent upon him, deserves our warmest commiseration; and yet, how many such are there that live around us, for whom we have no sympathy; for whom we exhibit as much indifference, as if they were stones beneath our feet." Much better to say who in all these places. That may do, in all; but both will never do. There must be uniformity, or there is no beauty. As a relative, that, cannot take a preposition or verb immediately before it : I can say, "the person to whom I spoke; the paper to which I affixed my name;" but I cannot say, "the person to that I spoke; the paper to that I affixed my name." I can also say, "having accompanied whom, I felt satisfied;" but I cannot say, having accompanied that, I felt

satisfied."

200. When we speak of a noun of multitude, which consists of rational creatures, we can say who, or which, as we choose. If we speak of the individuals, as such, composing that multitude, we say who; as, "the legislature who enacted the law, were actuated by pure motives." But if we speak of the multitude, as a multitude, that is, without any regard to individuality, or rationality, we say, "the legislature which enacted the law, was actuated by pure motives." We must, however, be careful to be consistent; we must not use both who and which as applicable to the same noun. We must not say, "the legislature which enacted the law, and who were elected by the people, was actuated by pure motives."

201. There is one exception to this application of which solely to irrational creatures; and that is, where it is used in asking questions; as, "which of the persons did it?" You recollect that in paragraphs, 68 and 69, I told you a good deal about who, whose, whom, which, and that, when used as interrogatives. Just look at these paragraphs again.

202. When relatives are used in an interrogative form, and when you are obliged to place them CLOSE BESIDE EACH OTHER, you ought not to observe the consistency of which I have just spoken; because this would be highly disagreeable to the ear. You must vary the pronouns a little: "Who that ever breathed would submit to such oppression? What that can be urged, can be the slightest palliation for such a violation of the rights of man? To whom that the world ever produced, shall a freeman kneel?" 208. Whosoever, whosesoever, whomsoever, whatsoever, whichsoever, follow the rules applicable to the original words. The so is an adverb; and its meaning, when uuconnected with ever and who, is, in like manner; but here the meaning seems to be merged in these two words. Ever is also an adverb; and means, at any time, at all times. These two words when joined to who, as whosoever, that is, whoever, therefore mean, what person at any time. This explanation also applies to the other four words. These pronouns are trifling matters; ones that you will readily understand. The dictionary will tell you the meaning of each word, and that is all you need know.

204. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. These have been pretty well enlarged upon in paragraph 70; which just look at again. These words never change their endings. This always applies to what is near us, and what is in the singular number. These always to what are near us, and what are in the plural number. That always to what is not so near us, and what is in the singular number; and Those always to what are not so near us, and what are in the plural number. It is not likely that you will commit many errors with regard to these words; but if you do not be careful, you will neglect to use them when they ought to be used. Wishing a person to give you a book from among several, you may say, "give me one of them;" sounding the "them" with great emphasis. "Give me one of them!" them what? THEM BOOKS.

This,

you see, will not do. You must say, "give me one of those;" that is, those books. Lindley Murray, in his twenty first rule, gives this example: "We are apt to love who love us ;" and then says, that the word "them" should be