grammar, this hopeful reformer thoroughly condemns; “repudiating this sentiment to the full extent of it,” (ib.) and “writing his theory as though he had never seen a book, entitled an English Grammar.”—­Ib. And, for all the ends of good learning, it would have been as well or better, if he never had.  His passion for novelty has led him not only to abandon or misapply, in an unprecedented degree, the usual terms of the art, but to disregard in many instances its most unquestionable principles, universal as well as particular.  His parts of speech are the following ten:  “Names, Substitutes, Asserters, Adnames, Modifiers, Relatives, Connectives, Interrogatives, Repliers, and Exclamations.”—­The Gram., p. 20.  His names are nouns; his substitutes are pronouns, and any adjectives whose nouns are not expressed; his asserters are verbs and participles, though the latter assert nothing; his adnames are articles, adjectives whose nouns or pronouns are expressed, and adverbs that relate to adjectives; his modifiers are such adverbs as “modify the sense or sound of a whole sentence;” his relatives are prepositions, some of which govern no object; his connectives are conjunctions, with certain adverbs and phrases; his interrogatives and repliers are new parts of speech, very lamely explained; his exclamations are interjections, and “phrases used independently; as, O hapless choice!”—­The Gram., p. 22.  In parsing, he finds a world of “accommodatives;” as, “John is more than five years older than William.”—­Ib. p. 202.  Here he calls the whole phrase “more than five years” “a secondary adname” i. e., adjective.  But, in the phrase, “more than five years afterwards,” he would call the same words “a secondary modifier;” i. e., adverb.—­Ib., p. 203.  And, in the phrase, “more than five years before the war,” he would call them “a secondary relative;” i. e., preposition.—­Ib., p. 204.  And so of other phrases innumerable.  His cases are five, two of which are new, “the Independent” and “the Twofold case.”  His “independent case” is sometimes the nominative in form, as “thou” and “she;” (p. 62;) sometimes the objective, as, “me” and “him;” (p. 62 and p. 199;) sometimes erroneously supposed to be the subject of a finite verb; while his nominative is sometimes as erroneously said to have no verb.  His code of syntax has two sorts of rules, Analytical and Synthetical.  The former are professedly seventeen in number; but, many of them consisting of two, three, or four distinct parts, their real number is more properly thirty-four.  The latter are reckoned forty-five; but if we count their separate parts, they are fifty-six:  and these with the others make ninety.  I shall not particularize