they are all of the third person when spoken of, and of the second person when spoken to.”—­Murray’s Gram., p. 38; Alger’s Murray, 16; Merchant’s, 23; Bacon’s, 12; Maltby’s, 12; Lyon’s, 7; Guy’s, 4; Ingersoll’s, 26; S.  Putnam’s, 13; T.  H. Miller’s, 17; Rev. T. Smith’s, 13.  Who, but a child taught by language like this, would ever think of speaking to a noun? or, that a noun of the second person could not be spoken of? or, that a noun cannot be put in the first person, so as to agree with I or we?  Murray himself once taught, that, “Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, and the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, and person;” and he departed from a true and important principle of syntax, when he altered his rule to its present form.  But I have said that the sentence above is obscure, or its meaning absurd.  What does the pronoun “they” represent? “Substantives,” according to the author’s intent; but “gender, number, and case,” according to the obvious construction of the words.  Let us try a parallel:”  To scriveners belong pen, ink, and paper; and they are all of primary importance when there is occasion to use them, and of none at all when they are not needed.”  Now, if this sentence is obscure, the other is not less so; but, if this is perfectly clear, so that what is said is obviously and only what is intended, then it is equally clear, that what is said in the former, is gross absurdity, and that the words cannot reasonably be construed into the sense which the writer, and his copyists, designed.

32.  All Murray’s grammars, not excepting the two volumes octavo, are as incomplete as they are inaccurate; being deficient in many things which are of so great importance that they should not be excluded from the very smallest epitome.  For example:  On the subject of the numbers, he attempted but one definition, and that is a fourfold solecism.  Ho speaks of the persons, but gives neither definitions nor explanations.  In treating of the genders, he gives but one formal definition.  His section on the cases contains no regular definition.  On the comparison of adjectives, and on the moods and tenses of verbs, he is also satisfied with a very loose mode of teaching.  The work as a whole exhibits more industry than literary taste, more benevolence of heart than distinctness of apprehension; and, like all its kindred and progeny, fails to give to the principles of grammar that degree of clearness of which they are easily susceptible.  The student does not know this, but he feels the effects of it, in the obscurity of his own views on the subject, and in the conscious uncertainty with which he applies those principles.  In grammar, the terms person,