to this in English poetry is that of eight syllables.”—­Blair’s Gram., “To introduce as great a variety as possible of cadences.”—­Jamieson’s Rhet., “He addressed several exhortations to them suitable to their circumstances.”—­Murray’s Key, ii, “Habits must be acquired of temperance and self-denial.”—­“In reducing the rules prescribed to practice.”—­Murray’s Gram., “But these parts must be so closely bound together as to make the impression upon the mind, of one object, not of many.”—­Blair’s Rhet., “Errors are sometimes committed by the most distinguished writer, with respect to the use of shall and will”—­Butler’s Pract.  Gram.,

CHAPTER XI—­INTERJECTIONS.

Interjections, being seldom any thing more than natural sounds or short words uttered independently, can hardly be said to have any syntax; but since some rule is necessary to show the learner how to dispose of them in parsing, a brief axiom for that purpose, is here added, which completes our series of rules:  and, after several remarks on this canon, and on the common treatment of Interjections, this chapter is made to embrace Exercises upon all the other parts of speech, that the chapters in the Key may correspond to those of the Grammar.

RULE XXIV.—­INTERJECTIONS.

Interjections have no dependent construction; they are put absolute, either alone, or with other words:  as, “O! let not thy heart despise me.”—­Dr. Johnson. “O cruel thou!”—­Pope, Odys., B. xii, l. 333.  “Ah wretched we, poets of earth!”—­Cowley,

   “Ah Dennis!  Gildon ah! what ill-starr’d rage
    Divides a friendship long confirm’d by age?”
        Pope, Dunciad, B. iii,

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XXIV.

OBS. 1.—­To this rule, there are properly no exceptions.  Though interjections are sometimes uttered in close connexion with other words, yet, being mere signs of passion or of feeling, they seem not to have any strict grammatical relation, or dependence according to the sense.  Being destitute alike of relation, agreement, and government, they must be used independently, if used at all.  Yet an emotion signified in this manner, not being causeless, may be accompanied by some object, expressed either by a nominative absolute, or by an adjective after for:  as, “Alas! poor Yorick!”—­Shak.  Here the grief denoted by alas, is certainly for Yorick; as much so, as if the expression were, “Alas for poor Yorick!” But, in either case, alas, I think, has no dependent construction; neither has Yorick, in the former, unless we suppose an ellipsis of some governing word.