greater than I Here I cannot concur with the learned author. The same argument would prove, that major quam me, would be more grammatical than major quam ego; a conclusion, which is opposed by universal authority. The truth is, than must be either a Conjunction, or a Preposition, o5 both.

If a Conjunction, it can have no government, any more than the Latin quam; unless we confound the distinction, which has been just now explained, and is universally admitted, namely, that Conjunctions are distinguished from Prepositions, by their having no government. If it be a Preposition, no argument is necessary to prove, that it may be joined with an objective case; for such is the distinguishing character of Prepositions. If it be either a Preposition, or a Conjunction, it follows, that it may be construed either with, or without a regimen. Lowth, with greater propriety, considers it as a Conjunction; and Campbell, in his "Rhetoric," recommends this usage, as the only means of preventing that ambiguity, which necessarily arises from the employment of this word, as a Preposition only. For, if we use it as

a Preposition, we should say,

"I love you better

than him," whether it be meant," I love you "better, than I love him," or "I love you better, "than he does." By using it as a Conjunction, the ambiguity is prevented. For, if the former sentiment be implied, we say, "I love you better

than him;" i. e. " than I love him;" if the lat

ter, we say, "I love you better than he;" i. e. "than he loves you." Whatever may have been the original character, or Syntax of this, word, since usage is now divided, some writers employing it as a Conjunction, and others as a Preposition, the grammarian may, consistently with his duty, plead for that usage only, which prevents ambiguity.

The rule here recommended is generally violated, when than is joined with the relative Pronoun, as, "Alfred, than whom a greater king

never reigned." "Beelzebub, than whom, Sa

tan excepted, none higher sat." Salmon has attempted to account for this almost universal phraseology, by saying, that the expression is elliptical, being the same as, "than compared with "whom." This explanation is forced, and unnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple fact is, that the word than was formerly used as a Preposition, and, I believe, more frequently than it is now. Hence, doubtless, arose this phraseology

RULE XX. Derivatives are generally construed like their Primitives; as, "it was a

happy thing for this country, that the Pre"tender was defeated;" or "happily for this

country the Pretender was defeated." Thus also, "to compare with," and "in comparison "with riches."—" To depend on," and his "dependence on the court."

RULE XXI. One negative destroys another; or two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative; as "nor have I no money, which I can spare;" that is, "I have money, which I can spare."-" Nor was the king unacquainted with his designs;" that is, that is, "he was acquainted."

Note 1. Here our language accords with the In Greek and French, two negatives ren

Latin.

der the negation stronger.

Note 2.

This rule is violated in such examples as this, "Nor is danger ever apprehended in such "a government, no more than we commonly apprehend danger from thunder or earthquakes." It should be, any more.

RULE XXII. Interjections are joined with the objective case of the pronoun of the first person, and with the nominative of the pronoun of the second, as, "ah me, " "oh me,"

ah thou wretch," "O thou, who dwellest."

PART III.

CHAP. I.

་

HAVING explained and illustrated the Etymology and Syntax of the English language, as fully as the limits, which I have prescribed to myself, will permit, I would now request the reader's attention to some additional observations.

The Grammar of every language is merely a compilation of those general principles, or rules, agreeably to which that language is spoken. When I say, a compilation of rules, I would not be understood to mean, that the rules are first established, and the language afterwards modelled in conformity to these. The very reverse is the case: Language is antecedent to Grammar. Words are framed and combined to express sentiment, before the grammarian can enter on his province. His sole business is, not to dictate forms of speech, or to prescribe law to our modes of expression; but, by observing the modes previously established, by remarking their similarities and dissimilarities, his province is to deduce and explain the general

principles, and the particular forms, agreeably to which the speakers of that language express themselves. The philosopher does not determine, by what laws the physical and moral world should be governed; but, by the careful observation, and accurate comparison of the various phenomena presented to his view, he deduces and ascertains the general principles, by which the system is regulated. The province of the grammarian seems precisely similar. He is a mere digester and compiler, explaining what are the modes of speech, not dictating what they should be. He can neither assign to any word a meaning different from that, which custom has annexed to it; nor can he alter a phraseology, to which universal suffrage has given its sanction. Usage is, in this case, law; usage quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi. If it were now the practice to say, "I

loves," instead of "I love," the former phraseology would rest on the same firm ground, on which the latter now stands; and "I love" would be as much a violation of the rules of grammar, or, which is the same thing, of established usage, as "I loves" is at present, Regula est, quæ rem, quæ est, breviter enarrat; non ut ex regula jus sumatur, sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat. Paul, Leg. 1, de Reg. Jur.

Having said thus much to prevent misconception, and to define the proper province of the grammarian, I proceed to observe, that this usage,