108 
the most recent and fullest. account of the 
petteries in Stafordshire P To obtain the in- 
formation desiredyI lately bought Pitt’s Agri- 
cultural Survey of that county. A part of 
it professes to describe the manufactures there; 
but there is 2 shameful silence about the 
petteries, P. 235, speaking of the potteries, 
he says, ¢ They have not been so flourishing 
since. the war.—Mr. Wedgewood,” Bat no 
more does he say. That patriot surely did 
not expect Mr. Pitt to be silent about a: ma- 
nufacture in which so much ingenuity has » 
been displayed. 
a ; 5 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
O the introductory remarks of your 
generaily-judicious correspondent 
Z, (No. 194, p. 8.) I give my tnqualified 
assent. But I completely ‘dissent from 
his opinion respecting an equivocal use 
of the relative, founded on the supposed 
propriety of empioying one and the same 
word in two different cases. | I have no 
hesitation to say, that ‘¢ the things which 
Thked, and were agrecable, &c.” is an 
improper phra seology 3 and it was not 
without surprise, that, in a communica- 
tion, the intended object of which 
seemed” to be the just condemnation of 
“‘ pedantic exertions to mould the En- 
glish grammar onthe structure of the 
Jearned languages,” I perceived an 
attempt made to give colour to sucha 
construction, by a supposed parailel pas- 
sage extracted from one of the learned 
languages. The simple and genuine 
principles of English grammar have 
already been too much distorted, by 
with other tongees. No applicable de- 
duction can, with propriety, be formed 
from guy classical rule’or anomaly. By 
a reference to irregular, or figurative syn- 
tax, 1t will be seen, that the ancients 
were not backw ard to take liberties with 
their own regular or ‘analegical syntax. 
Zt would, perhaps, be deemed a gram- 
matical heresy, were I to assert, that 
they had as great an aptitude to trip in 
their syptax, as the moderns have. 
Indeed, 
impropriety of using one and the same 
word, as two different cases, to represent 
the cantrary relations of agent ‘and pati- . 
ent, -is sufaciently manifest. The ener- 
nity of the error would not, in my appre- 
hension, be greater, even if there were a 
variation in the inflexion of the two 
cases thus confounded. The confound- 
ing two distinct relations in one and the 
sane word, 18 Just as ii a as the 
‘ 
On Eguivocal Constructions: 
‘pressed ; 
upon abstract principles, the 
[March 1, 
differently 
But it is improper to 
confounding two distinct 
inflected cases. 
have’ recourse either to analogy or to 
abstract principles, ona point respecting 
which reputable usage is not decided. 
For, as. your correspondent truly cb- 
serves, the phraseology for which he. 
seeins inclined to contend, is, at present, . 
‘<a point of no dispute,” either among: 
granimarians, or correct writers. 
- In English, the'relative. is often, not 
improperly, understood, when it is the 
objective case; as “ the person [whom] 
you mentioned, did not come.” But, in 
strict propriety, ‘itis never left to be 
supplied in the nominative case ; unless 
when, in the same sentence, and under 
the same general construction, it hasbeen 
previously expressed in that case thus: 
although we ought not to write, ‘‘ the, 
things which I liked, and were, &c.” but 
‘which were” ; yet, we may writé either, 
“¢ the things which were liked by me, and 
equally agreeable to my friends, &c.” 
Loy, “and which were equally agreeable.” 
From such a practice, sanctioned as it - 
is by general and reputable usage, no 
correct writer will ever deviate. inten- 
tionally.—-The preceding rules result from 
obvious principles. The objective case 
is often understood, in English, even 
when it has not been previously ex- 
and as the accusative of the 
relative is known to involve its antece- 
dent, it tay on this account, and from 
the nature of the general construction, 
often be omitted, without any detriment: 
to perspicuity. On the contrary, the 
_nhominative of the relative, alihough it 
being forced into unnatural AGinaitatioris : 
also implies the antecedent, cannot be 
omitted, unless it has been previously 
expressed. Perspicuity demands © its 
insertion. ‘Thus, ‘‘ the man you menti= 
oned came,” is sufficiently perspicuous. 
But, ‘the man is coming, spoke,” is un- 
intelligible. We must, according to the - 
sense, white either, ‘‘ the man who is 
coming, spoke, ” or the man is coming, 
who spoke.” 
It may be worthy of observation, too, 
that variation in construction, such'as a 
change from an active to a passive con- 
struction, and wice versé, or in persens 
and circumstances, seldom allows any. 
great latitude to elliptical constructions. 
It is needless to add that I object to. 
¢ 
-Pepe’s 
“ Abuse on all he loved, or loved write 
spread.” 
The same writer has another similar line, 
in which, however, with singular econo- 
my, Che noun seems to occupy the penn 
ut 
