even the beft writers will fometimes fall. That in the colloquial dialect, as Johnson calls it, fuch idioms frequently occur, is undeniable. In converfation you will perhaps ten times oftener hear people fay, There's the books There's the books you wanted,' than There are the books-;' and You was

.

⚫ prefent,' when a fingle perfon is addressed, than you were prefent.' Yet good ufe is always confidered as declaring folely for the laft mode of expreffion in both cafes. The argument drawn from the French ufage, (which, by the way, hath no authority in our tongue) is not at all appofitet.

BUT

+ The oblique cafes of their perfonal pronouns, answering to our me, thee, and him, are me, te, and le, not moi, tei, and lui. In these last we have the indefinite form which ferves indifferently as occafion requires, for either nominative or accufative, and to which there is nothing in our language that exactly corresponds. Thus, to exprefs in French, He and I are relations,' we must fay, Lui et moi, nous fommes parens.' But in English, Him and me, we are relations,' would be infufferable. 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 paffage of Scripture, (Rev. i. 18.) "Moi qui vis pré"fentement, j'ai été mort." But who that understands Englifh would fay," Me who live at prefent, I have been dead." Let this ferve alfo 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 fhall obferve in paffing, that one of

Priestley's

BUT fuppofing good ufe were divided on the prefent queftion, I acknowledge that the firft and fecond canons propofed on this fubject*, would determine me to prefer the opinion of those who confider the aforefaid particles as conjunctions. The firft directs us in doubtful cafes to incline to that fide in which there is the leaft danger of ambiguity. In order to illuftrate this point, it will be neceffary to obferve, that the doubt is not properly ftated by faying with Dr. Prieftley, that the queftion is, whether the nominative or accufative ought to follow the particles than and as; but, whether thefe particles are, in fuch particular cafes, to be regarded as conjunctions or prepofitions. For, on either fuppofition, it must be admitted, that in certain circumstances the accufative ought to follow, and not the nominative. But I infift, that as in fuch cafes there is a difference in the fenfe; uniformly to confider those particles as conjunctions, is the only way of removing the ambiguity. Thus I say properly, I esteem you more than they.'

Priestley's quotations in fupport of these phrafes, is defenfible 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 prepofition with.” "It is not with me you are in love," Such tranfpofitions are frequent in our language,

I fay properly alfo, I efteem you more than

them,' but in a fenfe quite different. If than is understood as a conjunction, there can be nothing ambiguous in either fentence. The cafe of the pronoun determines at once the words to be fupplied. The first is, ' I efteem you more than they efteem you.' The fecond is, 'I efteem you more ⚫ than I efteem them.' But this diftinction is confounded, if you make than a prepofition, which, as in every inftance it will require the oblique cafe, will by confequence render the expreffion per fectly equivocal. For this reafon, I confider that quotation from Smollet, (who is, by the bye, the only authority alleged on this queftion)" Tell

the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than him," as chargeable not fo much with inaccuracy, as with impropriety. The fenfe it expreffeth, is clearly, "I understand poetry bet,

ter than I understand him." But this is not the fenfe of the author. The fecond canon leads directly to the fame decifion, as it teacheth us to prefer what is most agreeable to analogy. Now that is always moft repugnant to analogy, which tends moft to multiply exceptions. Confequently, to confider the particles employed in this manner, of ftating a comparison as conjunctions, (which they are univerfally admitted to be in

every other cafe) is more analogical, than to con-. fider them as changing their usual denomination and character, in fuch inftances.

BUT to proceed; incorrectness in ufing the fuperlative degree, appears in the fubfequent quotation: "The vice of covetoufness is what "enters deepest into the foul of any other*." An inftance of the fame fault I shall give from a writer of no fmall merit for harmony and elegance. "We have a profeffion fet apart for the purposes of perfuafion, wherein a talent of this kind would prove the likelieft perhaps of any "other." I do not here criticise on the word other in those examples, which, in my opinion, is likewife faulty, after the fuperlative; but this fault comes under another category. The error I mean at prefent to point out, is the fuperlative followed by the fingular number, "the deepest "of any other," ""the likelieft of any other." We should not fay, "the best of any man," or **the beft of any other man," for "the best of "men.” We may indeed fay," He is the oldeft "of the family." But the word family is a collective noun, and equivalent to all in the house. In like manner it may be faid, "The eyes are the worst of his face." But this expreffion is

Guardian, N. 19. † Fitz-Osborn's Letters, B. i. L.

24.

evidently

evidently deficient. The face is not the thing with which the eyes are compared, but contains the things with which they are compared. The fentence, when the ellipfis is fupplied, ftands thus, "Of all the features of his face, the eyes are the worft.”

BOTH the expreffions above cenfured, may be corrected by fubftituting the comparative in room of the fuperlative. "The vice of covet"oufnefs is what enters deeper into the foul than

66

any other;" and "We have a profession set

apart for the purposes of perfuafion, wherein "a talent of this kind would prove likelier per

haps than any other." It is alfo poffible to retain the superlative, and render the expreffion grammatical. "Covetoufnefs is what of all vices "enters the deepest into the foul;”—and, "wherein a talent of this kind would perhaps of "all talents prove the likelieft.”

In the following example we have a numeral adjective, which doth not belong to any entire word in the fentence as its fubftantive, but to a part of a word. "The first project was to "shorten difcourfe by cutting polyfyllables into

re

one *." The term one relates to fyllable, a

* Voyage to Laputa.

part