~~ 
‘ 
\ e vie — "5. 4 
& On Pedantic Corruptions of the English Language., (Feb. iy 
In our sd ama verse 756, and 
seq. we read, 
H ver wor eciy EXTTETESY apying Ala 
von ay, Ofacee, Tayo Weuse TUAd spd 
Thag Y wx ay, nts en Aros Taco RARDS * 
© Nunguid est ut eleapiier aliguando 
excidai é€ principatu! gauderem puio, 
astum conspredia cladem : quidna vero / que 
a& Jove mulis afficier. ” Thus are generally 
rendered thosewordswhich Lo pronounces ; 
but moouer is a verb active, signifying de~ 
feciarem, and not delectarer. M. Dawes, 
in bis Misceiianies, assigns the second 
ef these verses to Prometheus, writlog 
Ho av, that Is, Hoo ev: thus, too, has 
fi. Brunk prinied it;. and this enables 
ws to find the weaning of cima, gauder C55 
puio; whilst the third verse 15 ane answer 
eilo; guidni? ‘The part: icle dz becumes 
no longer necessary, and our masupeLiBe, 
wich suppresses it, favaurs the cosjec- 
ture of those two learned erities, It sup- 
presses also, aud properly, as appears, 
the particie in verse 830. 
~ ~ a x t 
peayteia Saxeo eget Oermpera Aig 
“Fepag T ATIC OV. 
é 
8 Ubi est sedes prophetica Jovis Threspoti et 
miraculum tacredibile.” 
It is evident that the particle ve is not 
necessary to the seuse and measure of 
the first verse; and i can scarcely be- 
eve, that the poet, without any neces- 
sity, would seck tis Cacephony, parrea 
Saxe: 2! Eri Gearapire, wherein the same 
CoNsvuant 15 repeaied six times in tour 
words, On the same account that we 
reject the smep:Zovres, and adopt the 
reading of our MS. UTECEY OUT ES, (in 
Yerse 213,) we are Ind: ced i. ureter aiso, 
in verse,857, ! 
Hee: Snpsvovtes & Snpaciwag 
YAjrls. 
“ Ibunl venanies non venundas nup- 
tias.”——Paw’s edition, without any ne- 
cessity, has Sygevoerves i) the future, 
Tt is to be remarked, also, that, in. verse 
1014, . 
*AuSadela ta ppevivers pan Kara 5 
our editors read, 
"Audadia yop Ta 1 cvUvTt, zc. 
The yzp here is of ny” service to ‘the 
sense of the pora ase, but with atSahe it 
is necessary to the measure of the verse, 
In reading avSaveiz, it would be useless 
for this onject. It is certain, that when- 
ever the poets employ the dieresés, or dis- 
solution of the diphthong at Or oy In two 
/ vowels af, of, the s continues long: from 
the same analogy should proceed the 
same result, in respect tothe diphthong 
ss. ‘This weep would be of impor- 
tance to the kuowledyve of ' prosody, if 
confirmed by a suflicient number. of ex= 
amples.—Atter vérse 840, there follows, 
as if a line by dKschylus, leus¢ ene cov 
pynjadieumd Tag ons Wramg, Which is, In 
act, only an explanation of verse 839. 
ili 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ; ; 
Ses tremendous mischiefs brought 
upon the study of English grammar, 
by the persevering and pedantic, or ig- 
noraut exertions, to mouldit on the struc- 
fnreof the: leaimed languages, will be- 
come st: ikingly obvious to any one who. 
cun consilcr the matier without preju- 
dice; but these miseliefs must infallibly 
continue in some degree, ull a second 
Priestiey (with equal penetration and. 
courage, but greater good fortune) shall 
arise, to confine both declension and con=- 
jueation within the bounds of mere in- 
flection. That it is a point of dispute. 
with our modern Priscians (or rather of 
no dispute, fur they seem to decide in the 
negative), whether a noun, or a pronoun 
without the accusative variation, may be 
made both the subject of one verb and 
the object of another; in other words, 
both a nominative and’an accusative, as 
we should call it in Latin; in such an ex-' 
ample as this: “ the things which Lliked, 
and were equally agreeabie to my friend ;” 
which being here the object of liked and 
the subject of were. It is true, this cons 
struction sounds rather awkwardly : but 
I think, only tothose who know something 
of the syntax of the learned languages, or - 
have received their notions on this } parti- 
cular point from others who do; or solely 
on account of its infrequency ( (which n- 
frequency, by the by, is also imputable 
to the $gme causes.) There isa well- - 
known passage of Horace, which has often 
struck me as an exact case in pomton 
this question: I will therefore only men- 
tion it,and trouble youno further, Itisthis: 
** Quod magis ad nos 
Pertinet, et nescire malum est: - ae 
where guod is the nominative to pertinet 
and the accusative to mescire. 
So ina line of Pope: 
Abuse on all he loved, or loved him, spread: 
;where there evidently is only one relative 
word intended to be understood, and 
this, on the above-mentioned caeader 
ation, should be the relative tha¢; ‘* abuse 
on all that heloved, or [that] loved him :” 
that being the object (or accusative) to 
the first loved, and the subject (or nomi- 
native) of the second. 
Your’s, Be. z. 
Lor 
as 
