ject since that time, have been of the same character as the primitive writers. That many of these grammatical inconsistencies and imperfections still exist, cannot surprise us. Doctor Crombie, in alluding to Mr. Harris's definition of the preposition has justly observed: -"This furnishes one of many examples how easily error may be imposed and propagated by the authority of a great name. But, though error may be repeatedly transmitted from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it cannot be perpetuated." The definition of the preposition which the Doctor selected, and to which he gave the authority of his great name, is another of the many examples.

Lennie's definition of the preposition is, "A preposition is a word put before nouns and pronouns, to show the relation between them; as, 'He sailed from Leith to London in two days."

Between what does the preposition show a relation? Between nouns and pronouns—between what nouns and pronouns? Of course between the nouns and pronouns which are the antecedents of the pronoun them, that is, the nouns and pronouns before which the preposition is put. According to this definition the nouns and pronouns between which the preposition shows a relation, must follow the preposition, which, I believe, is not the meaning Mr. Lennie wanted to impart. Consequently the definition is badly worded. In the sentence he sailed from Leith, the only noun after the preposition from, is the word Leith, but we cannot say the preposition from, shows a relation between Leith. It must be between Leith and some other noun or pronoun after from, which is absurd, when Leith is the only word after it.

We strongly recommend the learner to ask, what relation does every preposition show? Between what words the relation exists, and how does the preposition show it. For instance, in the example given by Mr. Lennie, "He sailed from Leith to London in two days." What relation does the word from show? Between what two words does this relation exist? How does the word from show this relation? Perhaps Mr. Lennie may reply, that the word from shows the relation of departure, or sailing, between the word he and the word

Leith. Neither Mr. Lennie, nor any other, can show that Leith has anything to do with the departure, or sailing. Leith did not depart, or sail!!! Between what two words does the pre position to show a relation, and what is that relation? How does the word to show this relation? There is no relation existing between Leith and London that can be expressed by the word to. What relation does the word in show? Between what two words does this relation exist? How does the word in show it? According to Lennie the word days is one of the words between which the word in shows a relation, but according to his definition what the other word is, no one can say. It may be, he, Leith, or London. To assert that a relation exists between the word days and the word he, Leith, or London, and that the word in shows this relation, is as evident an inconsistency as to assert that virtue is vice.

We present the reader the following rich specimens of Mr. Lennie's puffing.

See title page: "The principles of English grammar, comprising the substance of all the most approved English Grammars extant, briefly defined and neatly arranged."

Page 179. "The preceding Grammar, owing to the uncommon precision and brevity of the definitions, rules, and notes, is not only better adapted to the capacity of children than the generality of these, styled introductory Grammars; but it is so extensively provided with exercises of every sort, that it will entirely supersede the use of "Mr. (Lindley) Murray's larger Grammar and exercises; for this is not a mere outline, like his Abridgment, which contains only about seven pages of exercises on bad grammar. This contains more than sixty. This contains a complete course of grammar, and supersedes the use of any other book of the kind." What a national jewel!!

"In short, by abridging every subject of minor importance, by omitting discussion on the numberless points about which grammarians differ, by rendering the rules and definitions more perspicuous, and at the same time abridging them more than one-half, by selecting short sentences on bad grammar, by leaving few broken lines, and printing them close together— as many exercises under each rule of syntax are compressed

into this epitome as there are in Mr. Murray's volume of Exercises; so that the use of his Abridgement, price 1s. 3d.-his larger Grammar, price 4s.--and that of his Exercises, price 2s. 6d. are completely superseded by this little volume at 1s. 6d. ; while, at the same time, the learner will acquire as much knowledge of grammar with this in six months, as with all these volumes in twelve."

The last clause shows Mr. Lennie's refined taste and pure diction. It only contains four glaring errors: namely, the use are completely superseded, instead of, is superseded; and that, instead of and; with this, for by this; with all these, for by all these.

Let us examine this puffing a little.

How can Mr. Lennie's Grammar comprise the substance of all the most approved English grammars extant, and omit the numberless discussions on subjects of the greatest grammatical importance on which grammarians have differed; as, moods, tenses, cases, etc.? In one part of his Grammar, he tells us, that his is better adapted to the capacities of children than other grammars; in page 54, he unblushingly acknowledges his incapability of writing a definition of a preposition, which will lead a child to distinguish it from the other kinds of words. Let the public judge his capability of writing a definition of it for adults. To finish his bubble, he modestly informs the public, that "every page" in his rough-bound, 18-penny Grammar "wears an air of neatness and ease invitingly sweet." What Mr. Lennie means by wearing an air, we cannot imagine. Invitingly sweet, is a flagrant prostitution of words. See Lennie's grammar, page 142.

"With and and.

"When a singular noun has a clause joined to it by with, it is often difficult to determine whether the verb should be singular or plural, especially as our most reputable authors use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other; for example, some would say, 'My uncle with his son, was in town yesterday.' Others would say, 'My uncle with his son, were in town yesterday.'

"If we take the sense for our guide-and nothing else can . guide us in a case of this kind-it is evident that the verb should be plural; for both uncle and son are the joint subject of our affirmation, and declared to be both in the same state.

"When we perceive from the sense, that the noun before with is exclusively the real subject, then the verb should be singular; thus, 'Christ with his three chosen disciples was transfigured on the mount.' Here the verb is singular, because we know that none but Christ was transfigured; the disciples were not joint associates with him, they were mere spectators. There seems to be an ellipsis in such sentences as this, which, if supplied in the present, would run thus: Christ (who was attended) with his three chosen disciples, was transfigured on the mount.' With in the last sentence is bad English, and

ought to be by.

'Mr. Lindley Murray, however, thinks that the verb should be singular in the following and similar sentences. 'Prosperity with humility renders its possessor truly amiable;' 'the side A, with the sides B and C composes the triangle.' In my opinion, on the contrary, the verb should be plural. For in the first sentence it is not asserted that prosperity alone renders its possessor truly amiable, but prosperity and humility united, and co-operating to produce an effect in their joint state, which they were incapable of achieving in their individual capacity.

"If true, as Mr. Lindley Murray says, that the side A, in the second sentence, is the true nominative to the verb, then it follows of course, that the two sides, B and C, have no agency, or no share, in forming the triangle. It is obvious, however, that one side cannot form a triangle, or three-sided figure, and that the sides B and C are as much concerned in forming the triangle, as the side A, and, therefore, the verb should be plural.

"Upon the whole, we may venture to give the two following general rules:

"1. That wherever the noun or pronoun after with exists, acts, or suffers, jointly with the singular nominative before it, the verb should be plural; as, 'She with her sisters are well;' ⚫his purse with its contents were abstracted from his pocket;'

'the General with his men were taken prisoners.' In these sentences the verb is plural, because the words after with are as much the subject of discourse as the words before it. Her sisters were well as well as she; the contents as well as the purse were abstracted; and the men as well as the General were taken prisoners. If in the first example we say—is well, then the meaning will be, she is well when in company with her sisters; and the idea that her sisters are well, will be entirely excluded.

"2. When the noun after with is a mere involuntary or inanimate instrument, the verb should be singular; as, 'the Captain with his men catches poor Africans and sells them for slaves; the 'Squire with his hounds kills a fox.' Here the verb is singular, because the men and hounds are not joint agents with the Captain and 'Squire; they are as much the mere instruments in their hands as the gun and pen in the hands of he and she in the following sentences. He with his gun shoots a hare;' 'she with her pen writes a letter.""

Mr. Lennie says, "If we take the sense for our guide, and nothing else can guide us in a case of this kind, it is evident that the verb should be plural, for both uncle and son are the joint subject of our affirmation." He informs his readers, in page 83 of his Grammar, that the word with is sometimes used for and, and refers to the following examples under his first general rule (which rule see, in the extract we have already given): "She with her sisters are well;' 'his purse with its contents were abstracted from his pocket;""the General with his men were taken prisoners." In these sentences the verb is plural, because the words after with are as much the subject of discourse (we suppose he means as much the subject of the verbs) as the words before them."

We insist that the word with cannot be correctly used for and; that Mr. Lennie's first general rule is erroneous, and that each of the sentences, "My uncle with his son were in town yesterday;" "she with her sisters are well;" "his purse with its contents were abstracted from his pocket;" "the General with his men were taken prisoners;" is bad English. They ought to be, She and her sisters are well;" "his purse and its con

66