The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1875-05-13
Up. BRIGGS AGAIN.
THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT.

gartly not so. We shall notice that
part to which he should justly have
confined himself.
In speaking OF tho offer of the editors
of the Educational Journal and our
criticism in relation to it, he says: As
to the expression, 1--WE will send the
Journal for $1.10, we preparing the
Postage."T still fail to see gheSe it is
ungrammatical You have never yet
told us just what is wrong.
J.P. B. still fails to say that the
expression is grammatical. Though he
fails 10 see that it is ungrammatical
he does not venture to say that it is
grammatical. Perhaps he may see that
it is not grammatical when he is teld
iust what Is wrong and perhaps he may
not.
J:P b., not yenturing an opinion
himself, quotes the State Superintendent.
He says: The State Superintendent,
who had nothing to do with the COM
position of that sentence, says = + Z
"But having carefully examined it,
under the light of the criticism, found
nothing whatever gr9manaotjcallg incor.
rect. There was lack of conciseness,
but the writer sought to make the prepay
menJ of postage prominent idea with
the view of obtaining subscribers.
This would have been well enough it
the circular had been intended for the
public, but since it was addressed to,
or intended for, only Superintendent,
the expression suggested by the Editor
of the Telegraph would have been better.
I repeat, however, that nothing
.angrammaticai, as tha Editor asserts,
can be found in It'll. g., nothing incon-
sistent with the ordinary rules of pars-
ing an grammatical analysis" Follow
ing this quotation. J. P. B. says: Here
we will leave the above sentence until
you point out to us wherein it is
ungrammatical.
J. P. B., having failed to say that the
sentence is grammatical or to admit that
it Is Lot, after having been asked 80 do
so, should be excluded from having
anything more to say in relation to it.
The State Superintendent, promising
that the County Superintendent quotes
him correctly, takes issue with us in
saying, "I repeat, however, that nothing
ungramatical, as the Editor asserts, can
be found in it, /. e., nothing Inconsistent
with the ordinary rules of parsiDg and
grammatical analysis" The State
Superintendent, having thus taken issue
with us, we meet him and say that some
thing sungrammatlcal and inconsistent
with the ordinary rules of parsiug and
grammatical analysis can be found in
it. And, that there may be 70 misun-
derstanding upon what the issue is
formed, we will again quote the
sentence. ~. 91a
'sWe will send the Journal for $1l0, we
preparing the postage" aTfq.rra<
This is the sentence which we said and
now say is not grammatical, and of which
the State uperintendent says, there
can nothing be found IN it, ingram
matchmaking which is inconsistent
with tue ordinary rules of parsing and
grammatical analysis Now, we respect
fully ask the State Superintendent to
parse the words, ''a0s prgpaying." As
the word zoe is properly used and
Immediately followed by the active verb
q0W send, to which it is the nominative,
In the first clause of the sentence, which
is complete in itself, it is Meth
er necessary nor grammatical, to
repeat it preceding the active participle
prepoqing, IN the second clause, which is
dependent on the first clause for its
meaning. The second aSe, being where
it is. without necessity and against
propriety, cannot be in the nomitive case
independent. If it is independent In
any way, it must be independent of the
ordinary rules of parsing and grammatic-
al analysis. And, If it is allowable and
grammatical in the second clause of the
sentence, it would be equally allowable
and grammatical in hundred or
thousand similar succeeding clauses
in the same sentence, as; we
preparing the postage; we giving SO
oh ha,~
teeing that subscribers shall become
wiser and better; and so on to the one
huBdreth oronc thousandth clause; we
7aromisino that the Journel shall he