1805.] 
On certain Forms of Expreffion. 
A87 
this evident contempt for every thing fu-. cedes fub{tantive or neuter verbs, as in 
pe: fluous (for whatever isnot effential, and 
at moft can only pleafe the eye) gives to 
his execution that folemn grandeur and 
boldnefs, that lofty and haughty charac- 
fer, which are peculiar to his productions. 
But I moft part from you, ye fublime 
creations of the fublimeft genius, who 
fheds a luftre upon the age of modern art ; 
I muft leave the fan&tuary which inclofes 
you, perhaps for ever. Adieu, ye noble 
forms! never may the rude hands of bar- 
barians drag you trom your native home! 
And thou fublime, divine genius! drop 
a {park of thy fiery {pirit into our ener- 
vaied art, and inipire it anew with more 
folemn, more grand, and more manly con- 
ceptions. 
(To be continued.) 
—Se ee 3 
To the Editor of the Monthly. Magazine. 
SIR, 
DIFFERENCE of opinion has pre- 
vailed among grammarians concern- 
ing the cafe that fhould follow cosjuna- 
tions. Some have contended that they 
gevern a cafe, as the writer of the article 
Grammar in the Encyclopedia Britannica 
(Vol. VIII. part I. page 74), in his affer- 
tion, that in ‘* Englifh the comparatzve 
decree is followed by a noun governed by 
the word of contra-diltinGtion ¢haz, as in 
‘Latin by a noun in the ablative cafe go- 
verned by pre exprefled or underitood ;” 
while others have eflerted with truth, that 
they only connett like cafes, the circam- 
ftances conftituting fimilarity or correfpon- 
dence being duly attended to; or, that the 
word following them is either governed by 
forme verb or prepofition, or is itfelf the 
nominative to fome verb exprefled or un- 
derltood. The word than has been vari- 
oufly treated. In one expreffion it is al- 
ways ailowed’to be followed by the odjec- 
tive cafe, than whom. On this account, 
Dr. Priettley withed it to be conidered as 
a prepofition ; an arrangement oppofed by 
thole, who, tracing it to its original im- 
port in the Gothic and Saxon tongues, 
have afferted that it denotes meiely a ccr- 
tain relative fituation of place, or {pecifi- 
cation of time, being equivalent to thx, 
with which it is fill confounded by the 
vulgar ; and that, therefore, it ouglit to 
be reckoned an adverb. ‘Thus, they fay, 
“< Tam better then you,”’ which means, ‘¢ Of 
the two, J rank firft in goodnefs, thes, 
or, after me, you rank.”* But whether it be 
a conjunétion, prepofition or adverb, it 
is evident that, although the phrafe thax 
avhom occafions no ambiguity when it pres 
‘¢ He is aman than whom, or than who, 
there is not, or there liveth not, a better ;*° 
yet when joined to active verbs, it caufes 
the fame ambiguity as the promifcucus 
ule of se and him ; as, ** Heis a man 
than who,” or, ‘* than whom, I know 
not a better,’ are expreffions as different 
as ‘© He isa man, andI know nota bet. 
ter than he, or than him.’’ In fuch cafes 
you will allow, that cuftom fhould yield 
to perfpicuity ; for, according to the max. 
im of Quintilian, Non ut intelligere pofit, 
fed ne omnina pofit non intelligere, curandum. 
Whom is not, however, the only pronoun 
uied improperly after certain conjunctions. 
Him, her, them, &c. occafhionally under- 
go the fame fate. And it will generally 
be found that this miftake arifes from an 
improper ellipfis of the auxiliary verb ; 
of which omiffion I fhall produce a few in- 
fiances, which, though unimportant in 
themielves, may, if attended to, contribute 
to thé prevention of a very common error. 
The following fentence has been ob- 
jected to: * A iyftem involving fuch ab- 
furdities can be maintained by no rational 
man, much lefs by fo learned a man as 
him.” Him, it 1s juftly faid, ought ta be 
be. The omiffion of the neceflary verb 
after the conjunétion, and the words 
‘« learned man,” and ‘¢ him,” implying 
an identity of perfon, and appearing as if 
in the fame cafe by appofition, have oc- 
cahioned this miftake. But if dbzm fhould 
be be, there {till fcems fomething faulty 
in the flructure of the fentence; which f 
would alter thus, ‘* By a man (who is) 
fo learned as he,’ or, “* by fu learned 
aman ashezs.”’ For it does not appear - 
to me confiltent, that in the latter part of 
a fenrence a word fhould be omitted by an 
elliptis, /axiore fenfu accepta, if it bas not 
been expreffed, or implied, in the former 
part. What I contend for, is, that when 
the adjeclive denoting comparifen is not 
in the nominative cafe, or where fome 
part of the verb de has not been exprefied 
before the conjungtion, the omiffion of it 
-after is generally productive of am- 
biguity. Take the fol’owing fentence: 
‘* fj never faw a more learned man than 
Peter.” Some would erroneoufly fupply 
tre ellipfis by faying, ‘* than Peter zs ;”” 
but it that is their meaning, zs ought to 
be exprefied, as, according to grammati- 
cal refolution, the words underftood are 
“¢ than Peter has feen.”"? In Latin, this 
diftinétion is attended to: *¢ Nunquam 
vidi hominem doétiorem Petro,” or, 
** quam Petrum;” or, if the nominative 
1s 
