Of grammatical purity.

sition of, before that to which the subject is compar- ed. There is one case, and but one, wherein the aforesaid preposition is proper after the comparative, and that is, when the words following the preposition comprehend both sides of the comparison; as, “ He "is the taller man of the two." In these words the two are included, he and the person to whom he is compared. It deserves our notice also, that in such cases, and ond only in such, the comparative has the definite article the prefixed to it, and is construed precisely as the superlative; nay, both degrees are in such cases used indiscriminately. We say rightly, either" This is the weaker of the two," or " the "weakest of the two." If, however, we may form a judgment from the most general principles of analogy, the former is preferable, because there are only two things compared.

66

I SHALL subjoin to this an inaccuracy in a comparison of equality, where, though the positive degree only is used, the construction must be similar to that of the comparative, both being followed by conjunctions which govern no case. Such notions would "be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, "and fanatics as mad as them +." Grammatically they, the verb are being understoed.

66

† Bolingbroke's, Ph. Fr. 24.

THAT the particles, as after the positive, and than after the comparative, are conjunctions and not prepositions, seems never to have been questioned by any grammarian or critic before Dr Priestley. I readily acknowledge, that it is use which must decide the point; nor should I hesitate a moment in agreeing to the notion he suggests, if it were supported by what could be justly denominated general and reputable use. But to me it is manifest, that both the most numerous and the most considerable authorities are on the opposite side; and therefore, that those instances which he produceth in favour of that hypothesis, ought to be regarded merely as negligences of style, into which (as I shall have occasion to observe more fully in the sequel) even the best writers will sometimes fall. That in the colloquial dialect, as Johnson calls it, such idioms frequently occur, is undeniable. In conversation you will perhaps ten times oftener hear people say, There's the books you wanted,' than There are the books--;' and' You was present,' when a single person is addressed, than, you were present.' Yet good use is always considered as declaring solely for the last mode of expression in both cases. The argument drawn from the French usage, (which, by the way, hath no authority in our tongue) is not at all apposite *.

6

* The oblique cases of their personal pronouns, answering to our me, thee, and him, are me, te, and le, not moi, toi, and lui. In' these last we have the indefinite form, which serves indifferently as

Of grammatical purity.

BUT supposing good use were divided on the present question, I acknowledge that the first and second canons proposed on this subject †, would determine me to prefer the opinion of those who consider the aforesaid particles as conjunctions. The first directs us in doubtful cases to incline to that side in which there is the least danger of ambiguity. In order to illustrate this point, it will be necessary to observe, that the doubt is not properly stated by saying with Dr Priestly, that the question is, whether the nominative or accusative ought to follow the particles than and as; but, whether these particles are, in such par

occasion requires, for either nominative or accusative, and to which there is nothing in our language that exactly corresponds. Thus, to express in French, He and I are relations,' we must say, Lui et moi, nous sommes parens.' But in English, 'Him and me, we are relations,' would be insufferable. The nominatives je, tu, il. are never used by them, but when immediately adjoined to the verb, prefixed in affirming, or affixed in interrogating. In every other situation the indefinite form must supply their place. Le Clerc thus renders a passage of Scripture, (Rev. i. 18.) “ Moi " qui vis présentement, j'ai été mort.' But who that understands English would say, "Me who live at present, I have been dead.” Let this serve also as an answer to the plea for these vulgar, but unauthorised idioms, It is me, it is him, from the C'est moi, c'est lui, of the French. I shall observe in passing, that one of Priestley's quotations in support of these phrases, is defencible on a different principle, and therefore not to his purpose. “It is not me you are in love with.". The me is here governed by the preposition with. "It is not with me you are in love." Such transpositions are frequent in our language.

+ Chap. X. Part i.

Sect. II.

The solecism.

ticular cases, to be regarded as conjunctions or prepositions. For, on either supposition, it must be admitted, that in certain circumstances the accusative ought to follow, and not the nominative. But I insist, that as in such cases there is a difference in the sense, uniformly to consider those particles as conjunctions, is the only way of removing the ambiguity. Thus I say properly, I esteem you more than 'they.' I say properly also, I esteem you more than ' them,' but in a sense quite different. If than is understood as a conjunction, there can be nothing ambiguous in either sentence. The case of the pronoun determines at once the words to be supplied. The first is, I esteem you more than they esteem you.' Then second is, I esteem you more than I esteem 'them.' But this distinction is confounded, if you make than a preposition, which, as in every other instance it will require the oblique case, will by consequence render the expression perfectly equivocal. For this reason, I consider that quotation from Smollet, (who is, by the bye, the only authority alleged on this question)-" Tell the cardinal, that I under"stand poetry better than him," as chargeable not so much with inaccuracy, as with impropriety. The sense it expresseth, is clearly, "I understand poetry "better than I understand him." But this is not the sense of the author. The second canon leads directly to the same decision, as it teacheth us to prefer what is most agreeable to analogy. Now that is always most repugnant to analogy, which tends most to

A a 2

Of grammatical purity.

multiply exceptions. Consequently, to consider the particles employed in this manner, of stating a comparison as conjunctions, (which they are universally admitted to be in every other case) is more analogical, than to consider them as changing their usual denomination and character, in such instances.

46

66

BUT to proceed; incorrectness in using the superlative degree, appears in the subsequent quotation : "The vice of covetousness is what enters deepest into "the soul of any other." An instance of the same fault I shall give from a writer of no small merit for harmony and elegance. "We have a profession set apart for the purposes of persuasion, wherein a ta"lent of this kind would prove the likeliest perhaps of any other t." I do not here criticise on the word other in those examples, which, in my opinion, is likewise faulty, after the superlative; but this fault comes under another category. The error I mean at present to point out, is the superlative followed by the singular number," the deepest of any other," the like"liest of any other." We should not say, "the best "of any man," or "the best of any other man," for "the best of men." We may indeed say, "He is "the oldest of the family." But the word family is a collective noun, and equivalent to all in the house. In like manner it may be said, "The eyes are the “worst of his face." But this expression is evidently

* Guardian, No. 19.

66

+ Fitz-Osborn's Letters, B. i. L. 24.