The Camden daily journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1864-1864, 1864-07-02

cnS OF Sa'y dressed colored women tho river banks
who hail the officers OF tho steamer and ask to be
| taken on Board
Ever sce the Charleston Courier converted is l.
toral tripod into quasi procssorial chair, tie press
Of the Coniederacy has been subject TO occasional 1T.
tacks OF grammar fever which breaks out IN, tho most
unexpected places the cIS.s being g,lcra'y sporadic
although tho diEc,$c sometimes assumes the tra.trcs
OF all epidemic Tho lntcSt ca.c is that Of tho Con-
Din Guardian which las cx!,clic, ctl slight attack
supcr'nduccc by the wicked aud dcpraved conduct Of
ccrtan Richmond papers exhibited in ll,cir pcrs St
ent use or the phrases "On row., .On ycs.r-
day" Two'of the paticnr' lends have undc,t,lrn
to prcsclibc orhim, hut far, to effect cure from
rhc Fact that they lunorcd rim anG ,ni stored hry:
/ 1Hs, wi'ctrthce oughttol,avcs1 s1l: linn ,;iul, ha,
the Richmond fellows were not So wicked and dcravcd
after all and that he The Gunydiun ln:! no & c,io,.
| whatever to he sick
1t happens tlat.wc lave noihih, particular to Ito
Hhont to day, and VIC propose, thorclom, to devote
hicf snccto the grammar question, itr tic especial
benefit of our cscclcd friend Tho Cuor:tn for whose
wcll-bclng we feel tho most lively socituc. Perhaps
too, the Richmond fellows might in gratitude send
paper ROW aud then (t there is such thug as II
Richmond papcr--ouching Which have grave
doubts) The yesterday question is soo,.'scttlc. Yes
| terday is a compound substantive, compounded OF
"day," pnd the absolcto adjective 'ycstcr," signi.
flying, 'last past" Yesterday tcn is exactly equal.
to "thc day last past MOI having any books Of ref
crencc at haud we do not le speak positively Of
tho derivation Of ycstcr bulwo believe it comes from
the Greek ",ustcrcs" In the phrase John came
yesterday" yesterday is in the objective case and
governed by the proposition 'on understood accord
ing to llfe familiar ro, 'nouni sSn;yns which way,
how far, how long, tmo when &c. are put IN the Oh.
jcctivc, a proposition beiug understood" In the.
phrase "JoEn came day before yesterday" yesterday
is governed by the proposition beurc" expressed.
The syntax of the word yesterday" is tho samo in
these two sentences, the only difference boing that tho
governing word is expressed in tho latter and not in
i'll tho former. "On yesterday" s therefore, not only
not ungrammatca, but tho ION" is essential to tho
logical analysis Whether the on should DO oXpresscd
ornot is question Of taste orr own opiuion il that
it. should bo loft to DO UNDERSTOOD in accordance with
the rulo that all words which can be supplied from tho
| context, should be omitted
And now for Tomorrow" Is "To.morrow" com.
pound advcrb compounded Of the proposition ito" and
tho substantive morrow," is it corruption Of 'lo
morrow" 1fit is the former "on tomorrow is cer-
tainly an ungrammatical expression; but not sad
| ow OF argucment can DO offered in support of tho
proposltion "lho morrow, on the other haud IS
familiar phrase We have not space to discuss tho
cymooey at length nor do consider it necessary
TO tho pholgist tho proposition viii automatic
And If tomorrow" is substantive, tho same reason
ing vii! apply to it as to yesterday" Wo add, by
way Of illustration thrc5 sentences exhibiting TO
morrow" in all the cases. "Tomorrow is ST. ClspiIs
day" 1To will not 1.-Two to SEQ to-mdrrow's SUM- I |
will make it to-day if can, but doubt whether can
comploto it before tomorrow And in all these "thc'
be snbstitmtcd' for 'to' without making tho
slightest alteration in either the scilsc or tho gram
matcal construction