The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-25

nrTT would have corrected his mistakes II
his attention had been directed to them.
DIR. JETER's style was almost perfect; Dut
he could not be made TO understand that
the sentence, "JoBH A. BROADUs is a bet
ter preacher than any in the United states
was incorrect because DR.. BRoADUs, the
man intended to be excepted, was included
among those to whom he was affirmed 10
be superior. We repeat, no writer upon
grammar cites the plumbers OF the I'M
distinguished rabble. Every such writer
quotes the blunders OF the best-known au-
thors.
.. In No. DR.. LONG is "poor indeed"
Like King LEAR, he stands exposed to the
peltlngs Of the pitiless storm. DR.. HoDGsoS
overwhelms him. Not single authority
can Or. LONG produce TO justify his criti-
cism of DR.. RYLAND's dictum. The single
sentence quoted from DICKENS doesn't
touch the point. IL is not even case OF
suppressed noniinative. At least two per-
sons were talking, or represented rather as
talking, and "you" is entitled to he the
nominative, not owe" or 81" 1t is,
however, IN clliptical sentence.
"But after all no man with scholarly in
stincts is willing implicitly TO follow
authority" That's your strong point,
Doctor. Cut loose from all the authorities.
They are against you. But here comes an
other No. L:
1. Let us understand first what the case
absolute Is" Why should we, Doctorf
We have shown that that case is not in
volved in this discussion.
9. The same remark applies TO paragraph
No. 2. Here, again, come new Nos. and
2. &c.
1. The sentences here quoted are correct.
They are examples Of the nominatIyc ease
absolute, and are not involved in this dis
cuSsion.
2. Here is false opposition, but the first
clause of the sentence has nothing to do
with the mistake. See how the true Apo
siton improves this sentence:
1--WE had intended to 90 by the. river
road, but having ascertained that that was
3. This is false apposition-not nomi-
native case independent-and therefore is
involved in this discussion. DR.. LoNG in
geniously tries TO show that the incorrect
sentence is better than the correct one, as
il one should say that the sentence at
amt gwinc rain tomorrow is more eX-
pressivc than the sentence st isn't going
TO rain Tomorrow Negroes are famous
nomnatiye absolute" does not "eLable"
us to say anything, Doctor; because there
is here no nomnatiye absolute. Neyerthe-
less, our critic goes on to point out the SUI
periority of this incorrect sentence to the
sentence as he corrects it. Why might it
not be made TO read as follows:
"Great and wise and full OF noble deeds,
he was naturally Tor spontaneously or in-
voluntarily beloved byeall men,"
OF course we shall not insist upon say
ing "he being great" &C., since that
would be to convert an example OF false
opposition into one Of the nominative case
independent, which last, we must insist.
has rothing to do with the question at issue
between DR.. LONG and US.
f. 1.-THE nominatiye case absolute"
again. Once more we repeat that we do
not object to the nominatiye case absolute.
The first sentence here quoted may as well
be omitted. 1t is not necessary to our ar
gumcnt. II irdS necessary TO DR.. LONG's,
because without it his false opposition mot
nominatiye case ABSOLUTELY would have been
placed in too clear light. Read:
"Having recently interfered in a certain
amicable controversy, his usual critical Sd
gacity was wanting"
Here it was plainly, individually indeed,
the critical sagacity" which interiered in
the controversy, as it was also the "clitical
sagacity" which was wanting" To
borrow Mr.. CoNKLNG's illustration,
this is an elliptical expression,) the
first predicate marched directly up
to its subject, but turned its back upon that
subject as soon IA it was reached. Here
are two prcdicates-the first, that he re-
Gently interfered"; the second, that his
"usual critical sagacity was wanting" 1t
is attempted TO connect the two by using q
participle; or rather, the one subject is to
answer for both predicates. The words
"haying recently interfered in a certain
amicabe controversy" demand that the
subject shall stand next to them; but Dr..
LONG refuses to grant this demand. The
subject is not mentioned in the sentence at
all It is totally ignored! "IIe" is the
subject. Gle" is the agent that inter-
iered; his is the critical sagaciiy that was
at fault; but she" is nowhere men
toned. Is that good English Nay,
verify; and DR.. LoNG's explanation Of the
occult meaning of his sentence only makes
"confuSiOn worse confOunded." We agree
that DR.. RYLAND's rule is wholly inappli-
cable to the nominatiye case absolute, be-
cause that case l. not involved in his rule
at all. "a suppressed nominatiye' and
ga nominative case absolute" cannot CO.
exist in the same sentence. ii the nomina-
tive is suppressed, it is not nominative
case absolute. Ii it Is nominalive case alb
solute, there can be 10 suppressed nomi.
native.
What we are required TO prove is that
sit always produces ambiguity. There
is no ambiguity in the sentence, Z" 'spises
folks what wears fine close" Is that sem
tence, therefore, correct. We give rule
which can be used always. DR.. LoNG gives
a rule which, Is not violated in the sentence,
"Being early killed, / sent party IN
search OF bis mangled body" nor by this,
Preaching on one occasion I'm village
chapel ninlls old ,Homan said 10 him :,