2.-On the Personal Pronoun.

1. He that promises too much do not trust. 2. My father allowed my brother and I to accompany him.

3. They were summoned occasionally by their kings, when compelled by want or fear to have recourse to their aid.

4. Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others, and think that their reputation obscures them, and that their commendable qualities do stand in their light, and that they do what they can to cast a cloud over them, that the bright shining of their virtues may not obscure them.

5. All which the king's and queen's so ample promises to him, so few hours before the conferring the place on another, and the Duke of York's manner of receiving him after he had been shut up with him, as he had been informed, might very well excuse him, from thinking he had some share in the affront he had undergone.

3.-On the Personal Pronoun 'It.'

1. The best way in the world for a man to seem to be anything, is really to be what he seems to be. Besides that it is many times as troublesome to make good the pretence of a good quality as to have it; and if a man have it not, it is ten to one but he is discovered to want it, and all his pains and his labour to seem to have it are lost.

2. It is a sign of great prudence to be willing to receive instruction; the most intelligent persons sometimes stand in need of it.

3. The absurd passion of being thought well of in the world is most noxious in two states of life into which it is imported. It is very bad in trade, for it looks down upon it.

4. It (vulgarity) may pervade a whole nation. When it does so, it renders them contemptible, however we may disguise it.

5. When wit hath any mixture of raillery, it is but calling it banter and the thing is done.

LETTER V.-SERIES II.

On the Syntax of the Relative Pronoun; The Proper Use of 'that,' and the Place of the Adverb.

My dear Boy,

We will now treat of the Relative Pronouns. A common error with relative pronouns is to use the objective instead of the nominative, and vice versa, the nominative for the objective. Who of all men in the world do you think I saw the other day?' Here we have two verbs, 'think' and 'saw,' both requiring complements. The complement of 'think' is 'who of all men in the world I saw ;' the complement of saw' is 'who,' with its restrictive attribute of all men in the world.' Now since 'saw' is a transitive verb, its object must be in the objective case, and should be 'whom.' Again, ‘I have heard persons whom I knew were in the habit of using the form.' Here we have the personal verbs, 'knew' and 'were;' their respective subjects are, 'I' and whom;' but whom' the objective case can never stand for the subject of a personal verb, therefore it should be 'who.' Here is another example: 'Whom of all men in the world do you think was chosen ambassador?' Here the two personal verbs are 'think' and 'was chosen ;' their subjects respectively are 'you' and whom ;' but whom' cannot stand as subject to a personal verb. By a personal verb I mean every

verb not in the infinitive mood. The subject of an infinitive verb is properly put in the objective case, as, Them they took to be me;' where them' is subject of the infinitive 'to be.'

I will now proceed to notice a pronoun hitherto I believe much misunderstood: I allude to the relative pronoun 'that.' It has been generally supposed and taught that this word is simply an equivalent for 'who' or which,' and it has been regarded as a very useful makeshift when either of these words would occur too often. Professor Bain, in his 'English Grammar,' however, is of opinion that it has a use much more important than this, viz., to introduce a strictly adjective sentence, and consequently that it is not synonymous with either 'who' or 'which;' and I think it will be found that the Professor has rendered essential service to perspicuity by calling attention to this peculiar use of that.' According to his theory, 'who' and 'which' should be used to introduce a sentence of equal importance to a preceding one, and may, by way of distinction, be called the co-ordinating relatives; that,' on the contrary, is to be used to introduce a clause subordinate to the preceding, and in a manner restricting or defining it; it may consequently be called the restrictive relative.

The following examples will better illustrate my meaning:

1. I met the boatman that took me across the ferry. 2. I met the boatman, who took me across the ferry.

In sentence No. 1 the intention of the writer is simply to state that he met a particular boatman; in sentence No 2, on the contrary, his intention is not simply to inform us that he met a boatman, but that the boatman also took him across the ferry. In this example the 'who' is equivalent to and he,' which is not the case in No. 1.

The following example from Addison is an incorrect

use of 'who.' "There will be few in the next generation who will not at least be able to write and read." Here it is not the writer's intention to imply that the population will have materially fallen off, and that in the next generation few will be left; but he means that education will have advanced, and that then most people will be able to read and write.

6

The position of the adverbial phrase, at least,' reminds me that this is the time to speak of the Position of Adverbs generally. When the verb of the sentence is compound, i.e., composed of auxiliary and participle, it is convenient to place the adverb qualifying it between the auxiliary and the participle. In other cases the adverb should be placed as near the qualified word as possible, either immediately before or immediately after it. In case of the occurrence of several adverbs or adverbial adjuncts, the sentence will become heavy and disagreeable unless a judicious arrangement of them is made. This may be effected by placing the verb if possible midway between them. An excellent example illustrative of this is given in Bain's Grammar: "We came to our journey's end, at last, with no small difficulty, after much fatigue, through deep roads, and bad weather." This sentence reads much better thus: At last with no small difficulty, after much fatigue, we came, through deep roads and bad weather, to our journey's end.' Of all adverbs the word 'only' is most liable to mis-placement; this often occasions a sense different from what the writer intended. Thus, 'He only spoke of his father,' may mean 'none but he spoke of his father,' or, he did nothing else but speak of his father;' but 'He spoke of his father only,' means 'that he mentioned none but him.' I am, my dear boy, &c.

QUESTIONS ON LETTER V.-SERIES II.

1. Name a common error in the use of relative pronouns.

2. Illustrate this.

8. Why are the following sentences wrong? I have heard persons whom I knew were in the habit of using this form.' 'Who of all men in the world do you think I saw the other day ?*

4. What do you mean by a personal verb ?

5. What is the proper use of the relative pronoun that?' 6. Instance a case where you cannot substitute 'that' for 'who.'

EXERCISES.

1.-On the Relative Pronoun.

1. Who should I esteem more than the wise and good?

2. By the character of those who you choose as friends your own is likely to be formed.

3. Who should I see the other day but my old friend? 4. Though I was blamed it could not have been me. 5. It might have been him, but there is no proof of it. 6. I arrest thee, traitor! What I, my lord? 7. The youngest boy who has learned to dance is James.

8. The faction in England who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions was, &c.

9. It is the disciples of Christ whom we imitate. 10. These are the men whom you suppose were the authors of the work.

11. There are many words which are adjectives, which have nothing to do with the nouns to which they are put.

2--On the Place of the Adverb.

1. He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilize it.