[331] I cite this example from Wells, for the purpose of explaining it without the several errors which that gentleman’s "Model" incidentally inculcates.  He suggests that and connects, not the two relative clauses, as such, but the two verbs can give and can take; and that the connexion between away and is must be traced through the former, and its object which. These positions, I think, are wrong.  He also uses here, as elsewhere, the expressions, "which relates it" and, "which is related by," each in a very unusual, and perhaps an unauthorized, sense.  His formule reads thus:  “Away modifies can take; can take is CONNECTED with can give by and; WHICH is governed by CAN GIVE, and relates to security; security is the object of finding, which is RELATED BY of to conviction; conviction is the object of with, which RELATES IT to can look; to expresses the relation between whom and can look, and whom relates to Being, which is the subject of is." —­Wells’s School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 192.  Neither this nor the subsequent method has been often called "analysis;" for, in grammar, each user of this term has commonly applied it to some one method only,—­the method preferred by himself.

[332] The possessive phrase here should be, “Andrews and Stoddard’s,” as Wells and others write it.  The adding of the apostrophe to the former name is wrong, even by the better half of Butler’s own absurd and self-contradictory Rule:  to wit, “When two or more nouns in the possessive case are connected by and, the possessive termination should be added to each of them; as, ‘These are John’s and Eliza’s books.’  But, if objects are possessed in common by two or more, and the nouns are closely connected without any intervening words, the possessive termination is added to the last noun only; as, ‘These are John and Eliza’s books.’”—­Butler’s Practical Gram., p. 163.  The sign twice used implies two governing nouns:  “John’s and Eliza’s books.” = “John’s books and Eliza’s;” “Andrews’ and Stoddard’s Latin Grammar,” = “Andrews’ (or Andrews’s) Latin Grammar and Stoddard’s”

[333] In Mulligan’s recent “Exposition of the Grammatical Structure of the English Language,”—­the work of an able hand,—­this kind of “Analysis,” being most improperly pronounced “the chief business of the grammarian,” is swelled by copious explanation under minute heads, to a volume containing more than three times as much matter as Greene’s; but, since school-boys have little relish for long arguments, and prolixity had here already reached to satiety and disgust, it is very doubtful whether the practical utility of this “Improved Method of Teaching Grammar,” will be greater in proportion to this increase of bulk.—­G.  B., 1853.