p. 99.  Then he asserts that mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, are compounds of ne or s with mi, thi, hi, &c.:  that their application invariably “gives them a compound character:”  and that, “They may, therefore, be properly denominated Compound Personal Pronouns.”—­Ib., p. 101.  Next he comes to his Adjective pronouns; and, after proving that he has grossly misplaced and misnamed every one of them, he gives his lists of the three kinds of these.  His Relative pronouns are who, which, and that. “What is generally a compound relative.”—­Ib., p. 111.  The compounds of who, which, and what, with ever or soever, he calls “compound pronouns, but not compound relatives.”—­Ib., pp. 110 and 112.  Lastly he discovers, that, “Truth and simplicity” have been shamefully neglected in this his third section of pronouns; that, “Of the words called ‘relatives,’ who only is a pronoun, and this is strictly personal;” that, “It ought to be classed with the personal pronouns;” and that, “Which, that, and what, are always adjectives.  They never stand for, but always belong to nouns, either expressed or implied.”—­Ib., p. 114.  What admirable teachings are these!

[219] “It is now proper to give some examples of the manner in which the learners should be exercised, in order to improve their knowledge, and to render it familiar to them.  This is called parsing.  The nature of the subject, as well as the adaptation of it to learners, requires that it should be divided into two parts:  viz. parsing, as it respects etymology alone; and parsing, as it respects both etymology and syntax.”—­Murray’s Gram., Octavo, Vol. 1, p. 225.  How very little real respect for the opinions of Murray, has been entertained by these self-seeking magnifiers and modifiers of his work!

What Murray calls “Syntactical Parsing” is sometimes called “Construing,” especially by those who will have Parsing to be nothing more than an etymological exercise.  A late author says, “The practice of Construing differs from that of parsing, in the extension of its objects.  Parsing merely indicates the parts of speech and their accidents, but construing searches for and points out their syntactical relations.”—­D.  Blair’s Gram., p. 49.

Here the distinction which Murray judged to be necessary, is still more strongly marked and insisted on.  And though I see no utility in restricting the word Parsing to a mere description of the parts of speech with their accidents, and no impropriety in calling the latter branch of the exercise “Syntactical Parsing;” I cannot but think there is such a necessity for the division, as forms a very grave argument against those tangled schemes of grammar