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 who.

The preposition is often separated from the relative which it governs: as, Whom wilt thon 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 meanjing 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!

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 remembrance! 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 objective.

Some grammarians consider words situated like = queen, father, and him, in 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 used 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

thus situated needs no governing word; the sentence is complete in its simplest form.

RULE XVI.

Participial nouns may have the same cases, and be governed in the same mamer, as common substantives. They also have the power of governing other words in the objective case;

as,

Our heavenly Father, by diffusing his benefits, manifests his kindness: Blessed is the man that keepeth his band fro:n doing evil. In these examples, diffusing and doing are participial nouns, in the objective case, governed by the prepositions by and from; and they likewise govern the nouns benefits and evil by which they are followed. Participial nouns are sometimes placed after transitive verbs and governed by them; as, I cannot omit noting this truth: They could not avoid seeing me as I passed along the street. Here, noting and seeing are participial nouns, and are governed by the verbs omit and avoid.

case;

In the following examples the participial noun is intransitive, having no government of a as, They talked of returning here last week: He is desirous of going with his friends.-In the following sentences, the participial noun is used in the nominative case: The loving of our enemies is the command of God: The executing of good laws will strengthen government: His dying reduced the family to poverty.

The participial noun, although capable of expressing the relation of property or possession, does not elegantly assume the distinctive form of the possessive case: thus, instead of saying, They

.

were deprived of reading and writing's advantages: we more properly say, They were deprived of the advantages of reading and writing.

Cases Corresponding.
RULE XVII.

Two or more nouns coming together and signifying the same thing, are put by apposition in

the same case; as,

Joseph, the son of Jacob, was much beloved by his father: The Israelites were greatly oppressed by Pharaoh, king of Egypt: Give me here Jolin ? the baptist's head. In the first example, Joseph and son both refer to the same person, and are therefore in apposition; in the second, Pharaoh and king are in apposition; in the third, John and baptist's are in apposition, and both in the possessive case. The sign of the possessive after John is understood. When two nouns in the possessive case thus succeed each other, in apposition, the sign of the possessive is very properly omitted after the former. Two or more nouns of the singular number, when put in apposition, always require a singular verb. The following sentences are therefore inaccurate. Paul the servant of Christ, the apostle to the Gentiles, were eminent for piety and christian enterprise: was eminent. Solomon, the son of David, and king of Israel, are much celebrated for wisdom: is much celebrated.

RULE XVIIL

Any intransitive or passive verb may have the same case after it as before it when both words refer to the same thing; as,

M