I saw Abel come—­Ego videbam Abelem venire.  The same principle is recognized by the Greek grammars and those of most of the modern languages.”—­O.  B. Peirce’s Gram., p. 358.  Of this gentleman I know nothing but from what appears in his book—­a work of immeasurable and ill-founded vanity—­a whimsical, dogmatical, blundering performance.  This short sample of his Latin, (with six puerile errors in seven words,) is proof positive that he knows nothing of that language, whatever may be his attainments in Greek, or the other tongues of which he tells.  To his question I answer emphatically, NO.  In Latin, “One verb governs an other in the infinitive; as, Cupio discere, I desire to learn.”—­Adam’s Gram., p. 181.  This government never admits the intervention of a preposition.  “I saw Abel come,” has no preposition; but the Latin of it is, “Vidi Abelem venientem,” and not what is given above; or, according to St. Jerome and others, who wrote, “Abel,” without declension, we ought rather to say, “Vidi Abel venientem.”  If they are right, “Ego videbam Abelem venire,” is every word of it wrong!

[343] Priestley cites these examples as authorities, not as false syntax.  The errors which I thus quote at secondhand from other grammarians, and mark with double references, are in general such as the first quoters have allowed, and made themselves responsible for; but this is not the case in every instance.  Such credit has sometimes, though rarely, been given, where the expression was disapproved.—­G.  BROWN.

[344] Lindley Murray thought it not impracticable to put two or more nouns in apposition and add the possessive sign to each; nor did he imagine there would often be any positive impropriety in so doing.  His words, on this point, are these:  “On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing, and perhaps in some cases incorrect:  as, ’The Emperor’s Leopold’s; King George’s; Charles’s the Second’s; The parcel was left at Smith’s, the bookseller’s and stationer’s.”—­Octavo Gram., p. 177.  Whether he imagined any of these to be “incorrect” or not, does not appear!  Under the next rule, I shall give a short note which will show them all to be so.  The author, however, after presenting these uncouth fictions, which show nothing but his own deficiency in grammar, has done the world the favour not to pronounce them very convenient phrases; for he continues the paragraph as follows:  “The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconveniences of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.’—­Ib. This undeserved praise of his own rules, he might as well have left to some other hand.  They have had the fortune, however, to please sundry critics, and to become the prey of many thieves; but are certainly very deficient in the three qualities here named; and, taken together with their illustrations, they form little else than a tissue of errors, partly his own, and partly copied from Lowth and Priestley.