I.

Some people speak of "so many _spoonsfull_," instead of "so many spoonfuls." The rule on this subject says: "Compounds ending in _ful_, and all those in which the princ.i.p.al word is put last, form the plural in the same manner as other nouns,--as 'handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls,'" &c., &c.

Logic will demonstrate the propriety of this rule. Are you measuring by a plurality of spoons? If so, "so many _spoonsfull_" must be the correct term; but if the process of measuring be effected by _refilling the same spoon_, then it becomes evident that the precise idea meant to be conveyed is, the _quant.i.ty_ contained in the vessel by which it is measured, which is a "_spoonful_."

II.

It is a common mistake to speak of "a disagreeable effluvia." This word is _effluvium_ in the singular, and _effluvia_ in the plural. The same rule should be observed with _automaton_, _arcanum_, _erratum_, _phenomenon_, _memorandum_, and several others which are less frequently used, and which change the _um_ or _on_ into _a_, to form the plural. It is so common a thing, however, to say _memorandums_, that I fear it would sound a little pedantic, in colloquial style, to use the word _memoranda_; and it is desirable, perhaps, that custom should make an exception of this word, as well as of _encomium_, and allow two terminations to it, according to the taste of the speaker and the style of the discourse,--_memorandums_ or _memoranda_, like _encomiums_ or _encomia_.

III.

We have heard _pulse_ and _patience_ treated as pluralities, much to our astonishment.

IV.

It seems to be a position a.s.sumed by all grammarians, that their readers already understand the meaning of the word "case," as applied to nouns and p.r.o.nouns; hence they never enter into a clear explanation of the simple term, but proceed at once to a discussion of its grammatical distinctions, in which it frequently happens that the student, for want of a little introductory explanation, is unable to accompany them. But I am not going to repeat to the scholar how the term "case" is derived from a Latin word signifying "to fall," and is so named because all the other cases _fall_ or _decline_ from the nominative, in order to express the various relations of nouns to each other,--which in Latin they do by a difference of termination, in English by the aid of prepositions,--and that an orderly arrangement of all these different terminations is called the declension of a noun, &c. I am not going to repeat to the scholar the things he already knows; but to you, my gentle readers, to whom Latin is still an unknown tongue, to whom grammars are become obsolete things, and grammatical definitions would be bewildering preliminaries, "more honored in the breach than in the observance,"--to you I am anxious to explain, in the clearest manner practicable, all the mysteries of this case, because it was a cruel perplexity to myself in days of yore. And I will endeavor to make my lecture as brief and clear as possible, requesting you to bear in mind that no knowledge is to be acquired without a little trouble; and that whosoever may consider it too irksome a task to exert the understanding for a _short_ period, must be content to remain in inexcusable and irremediable ignorance.

Though, I doubt not, when you come to perceive how great the errors are which you daily commit, you will not regret having sat down quietly for half an hour to listen to an unscholastic exposition of them.

V.

We all understand the meaning of the word "case," as it is applied to the common affairs of life; but when we meet with it in our grammars, we view it as an abstruse term. We will not consent to believe that it means nothing more than _position of affairs_, _condition_, or _circ.u.mstances_, any one of which words might be subst.i.tuted for it with equal propriety, if it were not indispensable in grammar to adhere strictly to the same term when we wish to direct the attention unerringly to the same thing, and to keep the understanding alive to the justness of its application; whilst a multiplicity of names to one thing would be likely to create confusion. Thus, if one were to say, "This is a very hard case," or "A singular case occurred the other day," or "That poor man's case is a very deplorable one," we should readily comprehend that by the word "case" was meant "circ.u.mstance" or "situation;" and when we speak, in the language of the grammar, of "a noun in the nominative case," we only mean a person or thing placed in such circ.u.mstances as to become merely named, or named as the performer of some action,--as "the man," or "the man walks." In both these sentences, "man" is in the nominative case; because in the first he is simply _named_, without reference to any circ.u.mstance respecting him, and in the second he is named as the performer of the _act_ of _walking_ mentioned. When we speak of a noun in the possessive case, we simply mean a person or thing placed under such circ.u.mstances as to become named as the _possessor_ of something; and when we speak of a noun in the objective case, we only intend to express a person or thing standing in such a situation as to be, in some way or other, affected by the act of some other person or thing,--as "Henry teaches Charles." Here Henry is, by an abbreviation of terms, called _the nominative case_, (instead of the _noun_ in the nominative case,) because he stands in that situation in which it is inc.u.mbent on us to name him as the _performer_ of the act of teaching; and Charles is, by the same abbreviating license, called the _objective case_, because he is in such a position of affairs as to _receive_ the act of teaching which Henry performs. I will now tell you how you may always distinguish the three cases. Read the sentence attentively, and understand accurately what the nouns are represented as doing. If any person or thing be represented as _performing_ an _action_, that person or thing is a noun in the nominative case. If any person or thing be represented as _possessing something_, that person or thing is a noun in the possessive case. And if any person or thing be represented as neither performing nor possessing, it is a noun in the objective case, whether directly or indirectly affected by the action of the nominative; because, as we have in English but _three_ cases, which contain the substance of the _six Latin_ cases, _whatever is neither nominative nor possessive must be objective_. Here I might wander into a long digression on pa.s.sive and neuter verbs, which I may seem to have totally overlooked in the principle just laid down; but I am not writing a grammar,--not attempting to ill.u.s.trate the various ramifications of grammatical laws to people who know nothing at all about them,--any more than I am writing for the edification of the accomplished scholar, to whom purity of diction is already familiar. I am writing, chiefly, for that vast portion of the educated cla.s.ses who have never looked into a grammar since their school days were over, but who have ingeniously hewn out for themselves a middle path between ignorance and knowledge, and to whom certain little hillocks in their way have risen up, under a dense atmosphere, to the magnitude of mountains. I merely wish to give to them, since they will not take the trouble to search for themselves, one broad and general principle, unclogged by exceptions, to guide them to propriety of speech; and should they afterwards acquire a taste for grammatical disputation, they will of course apply to more extensive sources for the necessary qualifications.

VI.

It is scarcely possible to commit any inaccuracy in the use of these cases when restricted to nouns, but in the application of them to p.r.o.nouns a woful confusion often arises; though even in this confusion exists a marked distinction between the errors of the ill-bred and those of the well-bred man. To use the objective instead of the nominative is a _vulgar_ error; to use the nominative instead of the objective is a _genteel_ error. No person of decent education would think of saying, "Him and me are going to the play." Yet how often do we hear even well educated people say, "They were coming to see my brother and _I_,"--"The claret will be packed in two hampers for Mr. Smith and _I_,"--"Let you and _I_ try to move it,"--"Let him and _I_ go up and speak to them,"--"Between you and _I_," &c. &c.;--faults as heinous as that of the vulgarian who says, "Him and me are going to the play," and with less excuse. Two minutes' reflection will enable the scholar to correct himself, and a little exercise of memory will shield him from a repet.i.tion of the fault; but, for the benefit of those who may _not_ be scholars, we will accompany him through the mazes of his reflections.

Who are the persons that are performing the act of "coming to see"?

"_They_." Then the p.r.o.noun _they_ must stand in the nominative case. Who are the persons to whom the act of "coming to see" extends? "My brother and I." Then "my brother and I," being the _objects affected_ by the act of the nominative, must be a noun and p.r.o.noun standing in the objective case; and as nouns are not susceptible of change on account of cases, it is only the _p.r.o.noun_ which requires alteration to render the sentence correct: "They were coming to see my brother and _me_." The same argument is applicable to the other examples given. In the English language, the imperative mood of a verb is never conjugated with a p.r.o.noun in the nominative case, therefore, "Let you and _I_ try to move it," "Let him and _I_ go up and speak to them," are manifest improprieties. A very simple test may be formed by taking away the first noun or p.r.o.noun from the sentence altogether, and bringing the verb or preposition right against that p.r.o.noun which you use to designate yourself: thus, "They were coming to see _I_," "The claret will be packed in two hampers for _I_," "Let _I_ try to move it," &c. By this means your own ear will correct you, without any reference to grammatical rules. And bear in mind that the number of _nouns_ it may be necessary to press into the sentence will not alter the _case_ respecting the p.r.o.nouns.

"Between you and I" is as erroneous an expression as any. Change the position of the p.r.o.nouns, and say, "Between I and you;" or change the sentence altogether, and say, "Between I and the wall there was a great gap;" and you will soon see in what case the first person should be rendered. "Prepositions govern the objective case," therefore it is impossible to put a nominative _after_ a preposition without a gross violation of a rule which ought to be familiar to everybody.

VII.

The same mistake extends to the relative p.r.o.nouns "who" and "whom." We seldom hear the objective case used either by vulgar or refined speakers. "Who did you give it to?" "Who is this for?" are solecisms of daily occurrence; and when the objective "whom" _is_ used, it is generally put in the wrong place; as, "The person whom I expected would purchase that estate," "The man whom they intend shall execute that work." This intervening verb in each sentence, "I expected" and "they intend," coming between the last verb and its own nominative (the relative p.r.o.noun), has no power to alter the rule, and no right to violate it; but as the introduction of an intervening verb, in such situations, is likely to beguile the ear and confuse the judgment, it would be better to avoid such constructions altogether, and turn the sentence in a different way; as, "The person whom I expected _to be_ the purchaser of that estate," "The man whom they intend _to_ execute that work." If the reader will cut off the intervening verb, which has nothing to do with the construction of the sentence, except to mystify it, he will perceive at a glance the error and its remedy: "The person _whom_ would purchase that estate," "The man _whom_ shall execute that work."

VIII.

It is very easy to mistake the nominative when another noun comes between it and the verb, which is frequently the case in the use of the indefinite and distributive p.r.o.nouns; as, "One of those houses _were_ sold last week," "Each of the daughters _are_ to have a separate share,"

"Every tree in those plantations _have_ been injured by the storm,"

"Either of the children _are_ at liberty to claim it." Here it will be perceived that the p.r.o.nouns "one," "each," "every," "either," are the true nominatives to the verbs; but the intervening noun in the plural number, in each sentence, deludes the ear, and the speaker, without reflection, renders the verb in the plural instead of the singular number. The same error is often committed when no second noun appears to plead an apology for the fault; as, "Each city _have their_ peculiar privileges," "Everybody has a right to look after _their_ own interest," "Either _are_ at liberty to claim it." This is the effect of pure carelessness.

IX.

There is another very common error, the reverse of the last mentioned, which is that of rendering the adjective p.r.o.noun in the _plural_ number instead of the singular in such sentences as the following: "_These_ kind of entertainments are not conducive to general improvement,"

"_Those_ sort of experiments are often dangerous." This error seems to originate in the habit which people insensibly acquire of supposing the prominent noun in the sentence (such as "entertainments" or "experiments") to be the noun qualified by the adjective "these" or "those;" instead of which it is "kind," "sort," or any word of that description _immediately following_ the adjective, which should be so qualified, and the adjective must be made to agree with it in the singular number. We confess it is not so agreeable to the ear to say, "_This_ kind of entertainments," "_That_ sort of experiments;" but it would be easy to give the sentence a different form, and say, "Entertainments of this kind," "Experiments of that sort," by which the requisitions of grammar would be satisfied, and those of euphony too.

X.

But the grand fault, the glaring impropriety, committed by "all ranks and conditions of men," rich and poor, high and low, illiterate and learned,--except, perhaps, one in twenty,--and from which not even the pulpit or the bar is totally free,--is, the subst.i.tution of the active verb _lay_ for the neuter verb _lie_ (to lie down). The scholar _knows_ that "active verbs govern the objective case," and therefore _demand_ an objective case after them; and that neuter verbs _will not admit_ an objective case after them, _except_ through the medium of a preposition.

_He_, therefore, has no excuse for his error, it is a wilful one; for him the following is not written. And here I may as well say, once for all, that whilst I would _remind_ the _scholar_ of his lapses, my instructions and explanations are offered _only_ to the cla.s.s which requires them.

"To lay" is an active transitive verb, like _love_, _demanding_ an objective case after it, _without the intervention of a preposition_.

"To lie" is a neuter verb, _not admitting an objective case after it, except through the intervention of a preposition_;--yet this "perverse generation" _will_ go on subst.i.tuting the former for the latter. Nothing can be more erroneous than to say, as people constantly do, "I shall go and lay down." The question which naturally arises in the mind of the discriminating hearer is, "_What_ are you going to lay down,--money, carpets, plans, or what?" for, as a transitive verb is used, an object is wanted to complete the sense. The speaker means, in fact, to tell us that he (himself) is going to _lie down_, instead of which he gives us to understand that he is going to _lay_ down or _put_ down something which he has not named, but which it is necessary to name before we can understand the sentence; and this sentence, when completed according to the rules of grammar, will never convey the meaning he intends. One might as well use the verb "to put" in this situation, as the verb "to lay," for each is a transitive verb, requiring an objective case immediately after it. If you were to enter a room, and, finding a person lying on the sofa, were to address him with such a question as "What are you doing there?" you would think it ludicrous if he were to reply, "I am _putting_ down;" yet it would not be more absurd than to say, "I am _laying_ down;" but custom, whilst it fails to reconcile us to the error, has so familiarized us with it, that we hear it without surprise, and good breeding forbids our noticing it to the speaker. The same mistake is committed through all the tenses of the verb. How often are nice ears wounded by the following expressions,--"My brother _lays_ ill of a fever,"--"The vessel _lays_ in St. Katharine's Docks,"--"The books were _laying_ on the floor,"--"He _laid_ on a sofa three weeks,"--"After I had _laid_ down, I remembered that I had left my pistols _laying_ on the table." You must perceive that, in every one of these instances, the wrong verb is used; correct it, therefore, according to the explanation given; thus, "My brother _lies_ ill of a fever,"--"The vessel _lies_ in St Katherine's Docks,"--"The books were _lying_ on the floor,"--"He _lay_ on a sofa three weeks,"--"After I had _lain_ down, I remembered that I had left my pistols _lying_ on the table."

It is probable that this error has originated in the circ.u.mstance of the present tense of the verb "to lay" being conjugated precisely like the imperfect tense of the verb "to lie," for they are alike in orthography and sound, and different only in meaning; and in order to remedy the evil which this resemblance seems to have created, I have conjugated at full length the simple tenses of the two verbs, hoping the exposition may be found useful; for it is an error which _must_ be corrected by all who aspire to the merit of speaking their own language _well_.

VERB ACTIVE.

_To lay._

Present tense.

I lay } Thou layest } money, He lays } carpets, We lay } plans,--any You lay } _thing_.

They lay }

Imperfect tense.

I laid } Thou laidest } money, He laid } carpets, We laid } plans,--any You laid } _thing_.

They laid }

Present Participle, Laying.

Perfect Participle, Laid.

VERB NEUTER.

_To lie._

Present tense.

I lie } Thou liest } down, He lies } too long, We lie } on a sofa,--any You lie } _where_.

They lie }

Imperfect tense.

I lay } Thou layest } down, He lays } too long, We lay } on a sofa,--any You lay } _where_.

They lay }