Grammarians have generally considered the personal pronoun, in such cases, to be governed by a preposition understood; as, He taught grammar to me. But the verb certainly has as much influence upon the pronoun me, as it has upon the substantive grammar; and why should it be said to govern one and not the other? There appears to be no propriety in understanding a word, or supposing a word to be implied, which, if expressed, would neither add any thing to the sense, nor render the meaning any more intelligible. Hence there appears to be no propriety in understanding the preposition to in the sentence under consideration; since the meaning is better expressed when it is omitted. Let the sentence be subjected to rigorous examination, and it will be found that the insertion of the word to, instead of being an illustration, is rather a perversion of the meaning; for strictly speaking, it is not the grammar which is taught, but the pupil is taught in the science of grammar. To say, He taught me, is literally true; but to say, He taught grammar, is true only in a figurative sense. Sometimes, however, the preposition may be inserted before the pronoun, and the literal meaning be preserved; as, He gave me a book. Here the true meaning is, he gave a book to me. But although a pronoun thus situated admits of a preposition before it, still the verb may be considered as the governing word, when the preposition is not inserted. It is not unfrequent that the omission of a preposition gives the office of government to the verb, when it would belong to the preposition, if it were inserted; as, He visited my father's house; or, he visited at my father's house. He faces the storm; or, he faces to the storm. He begged me to be quiet; or, he

begged of me to be quiet. He entered the city; cr, he entered into the city. In all these examples, when the preposition is omitted, the verb is transitive; it terminates on an object which it goveros. But when the preposition is inserted, the verb becomes intransitive; its power of government being taken away by the intervention of another governing word.

RULE X.

A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as,

Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain. Here the verb was offered, terminates on dollar, and governs it. Change the

construction of the verb to the transitive form, and it will read thus; Henry's father offered him a dollar. In this instance, the verb governs two objectives, agreeably to Rule 9th. And in all cases in which a passive verb governs an objec tive, the same verb, if put in the transitive form, would govern two objectives, as in the examples which follow He was refused admittance by the magistrate. Transitive-the magistrate refused him admittance. They were denied the privilege of a charter by the legislature. Transitive-the legislature denied them the privilege of a charter.

RULE XI.

Prepositions govern the objective case ; as,

I have heard a good character of her; From him that is needy, turn not away: A word to the wise is sufficient for them: We may be good and happy without riches.

The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective: Whe servest thou under? Who do you speak to? We are still much at a loss who civil power belongs to: Who dost thou ask for? Associate not with those who none can speak well of. In all these places it ought to be whom.

The preposition is often separated from the relative which it governs : as, Whom wilt thou give it to? instead of, To whom wilt thou give it? He is an author whom I am much delighted with. This is an idiom to which our language is strongly inclined; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the preposition before the relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous, and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style.

RULE XII.

The conjunction as, when it takes the meaning of jor, or, in the character of, governs an objective; as,

Addison, as a writer of prose, is highly distinguished: Shakespeare, as a describer of human nature, remains unrivalled: Brutus, although successful as a conspirator, was unfortunate as a general. In each of these examples, as performs the office of a preposition, and governs the following objective.

RULE XIII.

Interjections sometimes govern an objective case; as,

Ah me! O the tender ties! O the soft enmity! O me miserable; O wretched prince! O cruel reverse of fortune!

1

When an address is made, the interjection does not perform the office of government; as, O generation of vipers! Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come! O Brutus The heav ens speed thee in thine enterprise! O constancy, be strong upon my side. In none of these examples does tre interjection govern the noun which follows it; because in every instance an address is made, and consequently the noun is of the secoud person, and nominative case independent.

It may be proper also to remark, that the interjection is not to be considered as governing a word, when without essentially weakening the force of the expression, a verb may be supplied on which the noun or pronoun may terminate! as, O how vile that deed! How sad its remembrance! i. e. O how vile was that deed! How sad is its re membrance! But when a verb cannot be supplied without altering the phraseology and diminishing the force of the sentence, the interjection should be considered as performing the office of govern

ment.

RULE XIV.

The adverb like and the adjectives worth and like sometimes govern an objective case; as,

She moves like a queen. He is like his father. She is worth him and all his family. Like, in the first example, has the properties of an adverb, and qualifies moves. It also has the properties of a preposition, and shows the relation between moves and queen; it therefore governs queen in the objective case. In the second example, like is an adjective belonging to the pronoun he, and shows the relation between is and father, and consequent ly governs father in the objective. In the third

example, worth is an adjective, and belongs to the pronoun she. It also shows the relation between is and him, and governs the latter word in the obXjective.

Some grammarians consider words situated like #queen, father, and him, iù the above examples, to be governed by some preposition understood.-But the insertion of a preposition would be altogether superfluous; as in each case the office of a preposition is evidently performed by another word. Besides, it would be impossible to place a preposition after the adjective worth, as here used, without giving the sentence a ridiculous construction, and involving its meaning in obscurity. RULE XV.

Nouns implying measure, length of time, and distance of space, are put in the objective without a governing word; as,

The building is fifty feet in length: They arrived several weeks ago: Baltimore is one hundred miles distant from Philadelphia. Here the nouns feet, weeks, and miles, are all nouns in the objective case without a governing word. They are not governed by prepositions understood, for the obvious reason that prepositions cannot be ased in this connexion with any propriety.Should they be inserted, they would be an incumbrance worse than useless. Take, for instance, the last example: "Baltimore is one hundred miles distant from Philadelphia," and let some preposition be supplied to govern miles. What preposition will it be? And how would the sentence read with it inserted? The fact is, such is the idiom of the English language, that a noun