thou do it not;" instead of "that you would," "that thou do." But in the following and many similar phrases, this conjunction were much better inserted: "Yet it is reason the memory of their virtues remain to posterity." It should be," yet it is just that the memory," &c.

RULE XX.

When the qualities of different things are compared, the latter noun or pronoun is not governed by the conjunction than or as, but agrees with the verb, or is governed by the verb or the preposition, expressed or understood: as, "Thou art wiser than I;" that is, " than I am." "They

loved him more than me;" i. e. " more than they loved me." "The sentiment is well expressed by Plato, but much better by Solomon than him;" that is, "than by him.". ......................See vol. ii. p. 133.

The propriety or impropriety of many phrases, in the preceding as well as in some other forms, may be dis covered, by supplying the words that are not expressed; which will be evident from the following instances of erroneous construction. "He can read better than me." "He is as good as her." "Whether I be present or no." "Who did this? Me." By supplying the words understood in each of these phrases, their impropriety and governing rule will appear: as, "Better than I can read;" "As good as she is;" "Present or not present;" "I

did it."

1. By not attending to this rule, many errors have been committed: a number of which is subjoined, as a further caution and direction to the learner. "Thou art a much greater loser than me by his death."

"She suffers hourly

more than me." "We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the same proportion more than us." King Charles, and more than him, the duke and the popish faction, were at liberty to form new schemes." "The drift of all his sermons was, to prepare the Jews for the reception of a prophet mightier than him, and whose shoes he was not worthy to bear." "It was not the work of so eminent an author, as him to whom it was first imputed." " A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both." "If the king give us leave, we may perform the office as well as them that do." In these In these passages it ought to be," I, we, he, they, respectively."

When the relative who immediately follows than, it seems to form an exception to the 20th rule; for in that connexion, the relative must be in the objective case: as, "Alfred, than whom, a greater king never reigned," &c. "Beelzebub, than whom, Satan excepted, none higher sat," &c. It is remarkable that in such instances, if the personal pronoun were used, it would be in the nominative case; as, "A greater king never reigned than he," that is, than he was." "Beelzebub, than he," &c.; that is," than he sat." The phrase than whom, is, however, avoided by the best modern writers.

Some grammarians suppose that the words than and but are sometimes used as prepositions, and govern the objective case. They adopt this idea, from the difficulty, if not impossibility as they conceive, of explaining many phrases, on any other principle. This plea of necessity appears, however, to be groundless. The principle of supplying the Ellipsis is, we think, sufficient to resolve every case, in which than or but occurs, without wresting these words from their true nature, and giving them the character of prepositions. In the preceding paragraphs under this Rule, we have exhibited a number of examples, showing that the supply of the ellipsis sufficiently explains their con

struction. But as these may be deemed obvious cases, we shall select some, which appear to be more difficult in their developement. The following are of this nature. "I saw nobody but him;" "No person but he was present;""More persons than they saw the action;" "The secret was communicated to more men than him;""This trade enriched some people more than them." All these sentences may be explained, on the principle of supplying the ellipsis, in the following manner. In the first, we might say, "I saw nobody, but I saw him;" or, " I saw nobody, but him I saw;" in the second, "None was present, but he was present," in the third, "More persons than they were, saw the action," or, "More than these persons were, saw the action;" in the fourth, "The secret was communicated to more persons than go him;" in the fifth, "This trade enriched some people more than it enriched them."—The supply of the ellipsis certainly gives an uncouth appearance to these sentences: but this circumstance forms no solid objection to the truth of the principle for which we contend. Most of the idioms in a language could not be literally accounted for, but by very awkward modes of expression.

If the rule which has been recommended, effectually answers the purpose of ascertaining the cases of nouns and pronouns, in connexion with the words than and but, why should we have recourse to the useless expedient of changing these words into other parts of speech; especially when this expedient would often produce ambiguity, and lead into error? That it would have this effect might be shown in numerous instances. One, however, will be sufficient. "If we use the word than as a preposition, we should say, 'I love her better than him,' whether it be meant,' I love her better than I love him,' or, I love her better than he does.' By using the word, as a conjunction, the ambiguity is prevented. For, if the former sentiment is implied, we say, 'I love her better than him;*

that is, than I love him;' if the latter, we say, 'I love her better than he,? that is, than he loves her.'"

If it should be said, that but and than may be properly supplied by the prepositions except and besides, and that therefore the substitution of the latter for the former must be allowable; we reply, that, in numerous instances, these words cannot be properly substituted for each other. But if this could be universally done, it might still be said, that equivalence of meaning, by no means implies identity of grammatical construction. This, we This, we think, has been fully proved in the sixth Chapter of Etymology, Section 1. page 106.

From what has been advanced on this subject, the following rule may be laid down. "When the pronoun following but or than, has exactly the same bearing and relation as the preceding noun or pronoun has, with regard to other parts of the sentence, it must have the same grammatical construction." By applying this rule to the various examples already exhibited, the reader will, we doubt not, perceive its propriety and use.

That the student may be still further assisted, in his endeavours to discover the true grammatical construction of a noun or pronoun following but or than, it may not be improper to observe, that the 18th Rule of Syntax may be considered as subsidiary to the preceding rule, and to the principle of supplying the ellipsis. Thus, in the expression, "I saw nobody but him," nobody is in the objective case, governed by the verb saw; and him is in the same case, because conjunctions, according to Rule the 18th, connect the same cases of nouns and pronouns. In the phrase, "Nobody but he was present," he is in the nominative case, because it is connected by the conjunction but, with the noun nobody, which is in the nominative. The other sentences, in which the conjunction than used, may be construed in the same manner.

If the 18th Role of Syntax should not appear to apply to every example, which has been produced in this discussion, nor to others which might be adduced; it will be found, on strict examination, that the supposed exceptions are, in fact, sentences which do not come within the reason and limitation of the rule. Thus, in the sentence, "I have a greater respect for them than he," the pronoun he is connected by the conjunction than with the pronoun them: and yet they are not put in the same case; because they have not the same bearing and relation, with regard to the rest of the sentence; which is requisite according to Rule I8, and its explanatory note. See the Note at page

285.

The two latter rules are founded on the principle of supplying the ellipsis, and are intimately connected with it they in fact derive all their authority from that principle. They may, however, be of use to the student, by presenting the subject in different points of view: some of them may strike his attention, more than others, and lead him to a full developement of the subject.

RULE XXI.

To avoid disagreeable repetitions, and to express our ideas in few words, an ellipsis, or omission of some words, is frequently admitted. Instead of saying, "He was a learned man, he was a wise man, and he was a good man ;" we make use of the ellipsis, and say, "He was a learned,

wise, and good man."

When the omission of words would obscure the sentence, weaken its force, or be attended with an