MR GANT AND GRAMMAR.

Evening Star, Issue 3054, 2 December 1872, Page 3

MR GANT AND GRAMMAR.

To the Editor. Sin,-1 two letters published in your paper’d/. G. 8. Grant has by, to use his own jirsology, “ disingenons (query disingenviuinueudoes, ’ accused me of being the wteof the letters appearing in your paper shed “Onlooker.” I suppose he has bin 5d to make this surmise by the fact iat, having been a teacher, mus.t have been i to habit of correcting sohopf-boy exerecs I need, not tell yop, Mr Editor, that ar not “ Onlooker.’’ As Mr Grant has feicd fo me, I havp np, objection to dp wlial red to dp when ip schopl—p nut out graiuacal blupders in written cc-iupph-tier , , . ]\ Gant defends the accuracy of this scn|ic( “ As for ipy pwn letter, ft fs perfoc/ gamputical, apd absolutely bo'in thought, expression, and construptic!) I agree with the correspondent in yc coitcpiporary, the pso of “■ hath M imjs sentence is improper, Mr Grant says iris pefenpo, M Any [query °ne| hut a fool, O.Shetland tyro, knows that ‘both’ being an iiUn’tc adjective pronoun may bo followed Hhree or a thousand substantives.” Mr (nt could hardly have put in so few words much bad grammar. First, “both” is not, ihc sentence to which he alludes, an inmite adjective pronoun, but a conjiinca. Second, even if it wore an indefinite octive pronoun, it could not “ be followed three or a thousand substantives.” Third, ,oth,” “and,” arc used to place twp thjugs persons in correlation pr juxtapo.ptipn. i’hat “botV i 3 un iudeiinite adtive pronoun, hut a conjunctiun, pan dly be seen if the scat,moo be parsed. In oof of my assertion that “ both ” is a ennnction, I refer to Walker’s Dictionary Smart, where it is stated : - “ As a connotion it signifies on the one side, and or in responding in a subsequent member, and unifying, on the other :dde.” See also orabie’s Etymology an 1 Syntax, page .’|43, len and ('pniwell’sGrammar, WmM ;i qd 8. Jf My Grant would oply consider how would translate “Loth”—“and.” in Batin Greek he would see that V ,l h” i« not indefinite adjeefivo 'F A T n Latin both “ cand,” or “ ’ mtcnce, .and inVivcs. As soorrff: . 'r an indefinite addive pronoun is used with a noun, it ceases ' be a pronoun and becomes simply an jective. The abort grammatical rule is : When used with nouns, they arc adjectives; ien without, pronouns. Loth, bower, always alludes to “pairs” of things persons, whether it be an adjective or an definite adjective p onoun, e. <j. , Both re there ;—Both houses. I have- already lied that “ both—“ and,” are co-relative niunctions,' and an.V pupil iu » j umor ammar class could toll Mr Grant the same. Becrarding Mr Grants use of “ will,” and shall ” I ro»Y quote v/hat Leap AU°rd n buOly «yef (aaya the

Dean) an Irishman ora Scotchman who did not misplace them [«. e., ‘ shall, a sometimes.” A short rule by Brigatland runs : In the first person, simply shall foretells ; In -will a throat or else a promise dwells ; Shall in the second and the third docs thie.it 71W simply then foretells the tutu re tale.

In Mr Grant’s last letter 1m twice u?ca “ will. ” hi the first sentence he is correct in his use of “will;” in tbe other sentence ho is incorrect :it ought to have been s a • As Alford says : “We cannot use i will where a mere contingent future event is con cerned.” , T i In conclusion, allow me to state that L do not set myself up as the “ only scholar in the southern hemisphere,” nor do 1 say a any one of my letters is “ perfectly grainmatical and absolutely faultless, in thought, expression, and construction, am, &c., Robekt Stoui.