English, addressed each other in familiar conversation by the Second Person Singular.”—­Ib., Sec.221.  Say,—­“addressed one an other.” (4.) “Two sentences are, on the other hand, connected in the way of co-ordination [,] when they are not thus dependent one upon another.”—­Ib., Sec.332.  Say,—­“upon each other;” or,—­“one upon the other;” because there are but two. (5.) “These two rivers are at a great distance from one another.”—­Ib., Sec.617.  Say,—­“from each other;” or,—­“one from the other.” (6.) “The trees [in the Forest of Bombast] are close, spreading, and twined into each other.”—­Ib., Sec.617.  Say,—­“into one an other.”

[346] For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference:  “Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase.”  But in my edition of Dr. Lowth’s Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I do not find the passage.  Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell’s criticism, of which I here cite but a part.—­G.  BROWN.

[347] By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of participles to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood literally, assumes it as an “established principle,” that they all do so! “Participles govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, require the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, without the intervention of the preposition of; as ’Much depends on William’s observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it;’ or, ’Much will depend on the rule’s being observed by William, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.’”—­Hiley’s Gram., p. 94.  These sentences, without doubt, are nearly equivalent to each other in meaning.  To make them exactly so, “depends” or “will depend” must be changed in tense, and “its being neglected” must be “its being neglected by him.”  But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among “the established principles and best usages of the English language?”—­Ib., p. 1.

[348] What, in Weld’s “Abridged Edition,” is improperly called a “participial noun,” was, in his “original work,” still more erroneously termed “a participial clause.”  This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the participial—­“object