The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

any thing else of which it speaks, it has not only been often copied literally, and called a "RULE" of syntax, but many have, yet more absurdly, made it a general canon which imposes on all interjections a syntax that belongs to none of them. For example: "An interjection must be followed by the objective case of a pronoun in the first person; and by a nominative of the second person; as—Oh me! ah me! oh thou! AH hail, ye happy men!"—Jaudon's Gram., p. 116. This is as much as to say, that every interjection must have a pronoun or two after it! Again: "Interjections must be followed by the objective case of the pronoun in the first person; as, O me! Ah me! and by the nominative case of the second person; as, O thou persecutor! Oh ye hypocrites!"—Merchant's Murray, p. 80; Merchant's School Gram., p. 99. I imagine there is a difference between O and oh,[440] and that this author, as well as Murray, in the first and the last of these examples, has misapplied them both. Again: "Interjections require the objective case of a pronoun of the first person, and the nominative case of the second; as, Ah me! O thou"—Frost's El. of E. Gram., p. 48. This, too, is general, but equivocal; as if one case or both were necessary to each interjection!

OBS. 7.—Of nouns, or of the third person, the three rules last cited say nothing;[441] though it appears from other evidence, that their authors supposed them applicable at least to some nouns of the second person. The supposition however was quite needless, because each of their grammars contains an other Rule, that, "When an address is made, the noun or pronoun is in the nominative case independent;" which, by the by, is far from being universally true, either of the noun or of the pronoun. Russell imagines, "The words depending upon interjections, have so near a resemblance to those in a direct address, that they may very properly be classed under the same general head," and be parsed as being, "in the nominative case independent." See his "Abridgment of Murray's Grammar," p. 91. He does not perceive that depending and independent are words that contradict each other. Into the same inconsistency, do nearly all those gentlemen fall, who ascribe to interjections a control over cases. Even Kirkham, who so earnestly contends that what any words require after them they must necessarily govern, forgets his whole argument, or justly disbelieves it, whenever he parses any noun that is uttered with an interjection. In short, he applies his principle to nothing but the word me in the phrases, "Ah me!" "Oh me!" and "Me miserable!" and even these he parses falsely. The second person used in the vocative, or the nominative put absolute by direct address, whether an interjection be used or not, he rightly explains as being "in the nominative case independent;" as, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 130. "O maid of Inistore!"—Ib., p. 131. But he is wrong in saying that, "Whenever a noun is of the second person, it is in the nominative case independent;" (Ib., p. 130;) and still more so, in supposing that, "The principle contained in the note" [which tells what interjections require,] "proves that every noun of the second person is in the nominative case."—Ib., p. 164. A falsehood proves nothing but the ignorance or the wickedness of him who utters it. He is wrong too, as well as many others, in supposing that this nominative independent is not a nominative absolute; for, "The vocative is [generally, if not always,] absolute."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 142. But that nouns of the second person are not always absolute or independent, nor always in the nominative case, or the vocative, appears, I think, by the following example: "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders."—Acts, iv, II. See Obs. 3d on Rule 8th.

OBS. 8.—The third person, when uttered in exclamation, with an interjection before it, is parsed by Kirkham, not as being governed by the interjection, either in the nominative case, according to his own argument and own rule above cited, or in the objective, according to Nixon's notion of the construction; nor yet as being put absolute in the nominative, as I believe it generally, if not always is; but as being "the nominative to a verb understood; as, 'Lo,' there is 'the poor Indian!' '0, the pain' there is! 'the bliss' there is 'IN dying!'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 129. Pope's text is, "Oh the pain, the bliss of dying!" and, in all that is here changed, the grammarian has perverted it, if not in all that he has added. It is an other principle of Kirkham's Grammar, though a false one, that, "Nouns have but two persons, the second and [the] third."—P. 37. So that, these two being disposed of agreeably to his own methods above, which appear to include the second and third persons of pronouns also, there remains to him nothing but the objective of the pronoun of the first person to which he can suppose his other rule to apply; and I have shown that there is no truth in it, even in regard to this. Yet, with the strongest professions of adhering to the principles, and even to "the language" of Lindley Murray, this gentleman, by copying somebody else in preference to "that eminent philologist," has made himself one of those by whom Murray's erroneous remark on O, oh, and ah, with pronouns of the first and second persons, is not only stretched into a rule for all interjections, but made to include nouns of the second person, and both nouns and pronouns of the third person: as, "Interjections require the objective case of a pronoun of the first person after them, but the nominative of a noun or pronoun of the second or third person; as, 'Ah! me; Oh! thou; O! virtue!'"—Kirkham's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 134; Stereotype Ed., p. 177. See the same rule, with examples and punctuation different, in his Stereotype Edition, p. 164; Comly's Gram., 116; Greenleaf's, 36; and Fisk's, 144. All these authors, except Comly, who comes much nearest to the thing, profess to present to us "Murray's Grammar Simplified;" and this is a sample of their work of simplification!—an ignorant piling of errors on errors!

   "O imitatores servum pecus! ut mihi sæpe
    Bilem, sæpe jocum vestri movêre tumultus!"—Horace.

OBS. 9.—Since so many of our grammarians conceive that interjections require or govern cases, it may be proper to cite some who teach otherwise. "Interjections, in English, have no government."—Lowth's Gram., p. 111. "Interjections have no government, or admit of no construction."—Coar's Gram., p. 189. "Interjections have no connexion with other word's."—Fuller's Gram., p. 71. "The interjection, in a grammatical sense, is totally unconnected with every other word in a sentence. Its arrangement, of course, is altogether arbitrary, and cannot admit of any theory."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 83. "Interjections cannot properly have either concord or government. They are only mere sounds excited by passion, and have no just connexion with any other part of a sentence. Whatever case, therefore, is joined with them, must depend on some other word understood, except the vocative, which is always placed absolutely."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 196; Gould's, 193. If this is true of the Latin language, a slight variation will make it as true of ours. "Interjections, and phrases resembling them, are taken absolutely; as, Oh, world, thy slippery turns! But the phrases Oh me! and Ah me! frequently occur."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 188. This passage is, in several respects, wrong; yet the leading idea is true. The author entitles it, "SYNTAX OF INTERJECTIONS," yet absurdly includes in it I know not what phrases! In the phrase, "thy slippery turns!" no word is absolute, or "taken absolutely" but this noun "turns;" and this, without the least hint of its case, the learned author will have us to understand to be absolute, because the phrase resembles an interjection! But the noun "world" which is also absolute, and which still more resembles an interjection, he will have to be so for a different reason—because it is in what he chooses to call the vocative case. But, according to custom, he should rather have put his interjection absolute with the noun, and written it, "O world," and not, "Oh, world." What he meant to do with "Oh me! and Ah me!" is doubtful. If any phrases come fairly under his rule, these are the very ones; and yet he seems to introduce them as exceptions! Of these, it can hardly be said, that they "frequently occur." Lowth notices only the latter, which he supposes elliptical. The former I do not remember to have met with more than three or four times; except in grammars, which in this case are hardly to be called authorities: "Oh! me, how fared it with me then?"—Job Scott. "Oh me! all the horse have got over the river, what shall we do?"—WALTON: Joh. Dict.

   "But when he was first seen, oh me!
    What shrieking and what misery!"—Wordsworth's Works, p. 114.

OBS. 10.—When a declinable word not in the nominative absolute, follows an interjection, as part of an imperfect exclamation, its construction (if the phrase be good English) depends on something understood; as, "Ah me!"—that is, "Ah! pity me;" or, "Ah! it grieves me;" or, as some will have it, (because the expression in Latin is "Hei mihi!") "Ah for me!"—Ingersoll. "Ah! wo is to me."—Lowth. "Ah! sorrow is to me."—Coar. So of "oh me!" for, in these expressions, if not generally, oh and ah are exactly equivalent the one to the other. As for "O me" it is now seldom met with, though Shakspeare has it a few times. From these examples, O. B. Peirce erroneously imagines the "independent case" of the pronoun I to be me, and accordingly parses the word without supposing an ellipsis; but in the plural he makes that case to be we, and not us. So, having found an example of "Ah Him!" which, according to one half of our grammarians, is bad English, he conceives the independent case of he to be him; but in the plural, and in both numbers of the words thou and she, he makes it the nominative, or the same in form as the nominative. So builds he "the temple of Grammatical consistency!"—P. 7. Nixon and Cooper must of course approve of "Ah him!" because they assume that the interjection ah "requires" or "governs" the objective case of the third person. Others must condemn the expression, because they teach that ah requires the nominative case of this person. Thus Greenleaf sets down for false syntax, "O! happy them, surrounded with so many blessings!"—Gram. Simplified, p. 47. Here, undoubtedly, the word should be they; and, by analogy, (if indeed the instances are analogous,) it would seem more proper to say, "Ah he!" the nominative being our only case absolute. But if any will insist that "Ah him!" is good English, they must suppose that him is governed by something understood; as, "Ah! I lament him;" or, "Ah! I mourn for him." And possibly, on this principle, the example referred to may be most correct as it stands, with the pronoun in the objective case: "Ah Him! the first great martyr in this great cause."—D. WEBSTER: Peirce's Gram., p. 199.

OBS. 11.—If we turn to the Latin syntax, to determine by analogy what case is used, or ought to be used, after our English interjections, in stead of finding a "perfect accordance" between that syntax and the rule for which such accordance has been claimed, we see at once an utter repugnance, and that the pretence of their agreement is only a sample of Kirkham's unconscionable pedantry. The rule, in all its modifications, is based on the principle, that the choice of cases depends on the distinction of persons—a principle plainly contrary to the usage of the Latin classics, and altogether untrue. In Latin, some interjections are construed with the nominative, the accusative, or the vocative; some, only with the dative; some, only with the vocative. But, in English, these four cases are all included in two, the nominative and the objective; and, the case independent or absolute being necessarily the nominative, it follows that the objective, if it occur after an interjection, must be the object of something which is capable of governing it. If any disputant, by supposing ellipses, will make objectives of what I call nominatives absolute, so be it; but I insist that interjections, in fact, never "require" or "govern" one case more than an other. So Peirce, and Kirkham, and Ingersoll, with pointed self-contradiction, may continue to make "the independent case," whether vocative or merely exclamatory, the subject of a verb, expressed or understood; but I will content myself with endeavouring to establish a syntax not liable to this sort of objection. In doing this, it is proper to look at all the facts which go to show what is right,