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 or 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, nor 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.

6. 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 baskets 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," etc., etc. All faults as heinous as that of the vul

66

66

garian 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 who are performing the act of coming to see ?" They." Then the pronoun they must stand in the nominative case. Who are

66

"coming to see" exThen " my brother

the persons to whom the act of tends?" my brother and I." 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 no language is the imperative mood of a verb 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 1;" "The claret will be packed in two hampers for 1;" Let I try to move it," etc. 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.

66

"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 ren

dered.

"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.

7. The same mistake extends to the relative pronouns "who" and "whom :" we seldom hear the objective case used either by vulgar or refined speakers. "Who did you give it to?" "Who is this for?" are solecisms of daily occurrence; and when the objective "whom" is used, it is generally put in the wrong place; as "The person whom I expected would purchase that estate;" "The man whom they intend shall execute that work." This intervening verb in each sentence, "I expected" and "they intend," coming between the last verb and its own nominative (the relative pronoun), has no power to alter the rule, and no right to violate it; but as the introduction of an intervening verb, in such situations, is likely to beguile the ear and confuse the judgment, it would be better to avoid such constructions altogether, and turn the sentence a different "The way; as person whom I expected to be the purchaser of that estate;" "The man whom they intend to execute that work." If the reader will cut off the intervening verb, which has nothing to do with the construction of the sentence except to mystify it, he will perceive at a glance the error and its remedy: The person whom "The man whom

would purchase that estate;" shall execute that work."

This fault is wholly chargeable upon the shoulders of the educated idle; for, except in interrogative

sentences, vulgar people generally use the relative "which" in both cases, and say, "The man which paid me the money ;" "The man which the money was paid to."

8. But though illiterate people may say which, instead of who and whom, with impunity, there is something too repugnant to good taste, too derogatory to understanding, in the use of a superfluous "which," in such sentences as the following, from the lips of persons of respectable education: "I know a lady living at Richmond, who had two daughters, which the eldest married a captain in the navy;" "I was going to the bookseller's when I met Edward, which I had no idea he had returned to town." Will anybody have the kindness to explain the utility of this gratuitous "which?” When people have not had the opportunity of learning, ignorance is excusable; but in ladies and gentlemen who sin with their eyes open-" Oh! the offence is rank,"

9. It is very easy to mistake the nominative when another noun comes between it and the verb, which is frequently the case in the use of the indefinite and distributive pronouns,- -as "One of those houses were sold last week;" "Each of the daughters are to have a separate share;" "Every tree in those plantations have been injured by the storm;" "Either of the children are at liberty to claim it." Here it will be perceived that the pronouns "one," "each," " every,' either," are the true nominatives to the verbs; but the intervening noun in the plural number, in each sentence, deludes

99 66