thus:  “Now show me any popish rhymester except him.”  This too is questionable:  “Now pain must here be intended to signify something else besides warning.”—­Wayland’s Moral Science, p. 121.  If “warning” was here intended to be included with “something else,” the expression is right; if not, besides should be than.  Again:  “There is seldom any other cardinal in Poland but him.”—­Life of Charles XII.  Here “but him” should be either “besides him,” or “than he;” for but never rightly governs the objective case, nor is it proper after other.  “Many more examples, besides the foregoing, might have been adduced.”—­Nesbit’s English Parsing, p. xv.  Here, in fact, no comparison is expressed; and therefore it is questionable, whether the word “more” is allowably used.  Like else and other, when construed with besides, it signifies additional; and, as this idea is implied in besides, any one of these adjectives going before is really pleonastic.  In the sense above noticed, the word beside is sometimes written in stead of besides, though not very often; as, “There are other things which pass in the mind of man, beside ideas.”—­Sheridan’s Elocution, p. 136.

[438] A few of the examples under this head might be corrected equally well by some preceding note of a more specific character; for a general note against the improper omission of prepositions, of course includes those principles of grammar by which any particular prepositions are to be inserted.  So the examples of error which were given in the tenth chapter of Etymology, might nearly all of them have been placed under the first note in this tenth chapter of Syntax.  But it was thought best to illustrate every part of this volume, by some examples of false grammar, out of the infinite number and variety with which our literature abounds.

[439] “The Rev. Joab Goldsmith Cooper, A. M.,” was the author of two English grammars, as well as of what he called “A New and Improved Latin Grammar,” with “An Edition of the Works of Virgil, &c.,” all published in Philadelphia.  His first grammar, dated 1828, is entitled, “An Abridgment of Murray’s English Grammar, and Exercises.”  But it is no more an abridgement of Murray’s work, than of mine; he having chosen to steal from the text of my Institutes, or supply matter of his own, about as often as to copy Murray.  His second is the Latin Grammar.  His third, which is entitled, “A Plain and Practical English Grammar,” and dated 1831, is a book very different from the first, but equally inaccurate and worthless.  In this book, the syntax of interjections stands thus:  “RULE 21.  The interjections O, oh and ah are followed by the objective case of a noun or pronoun, as:  ‘O me! ah me! oh me!’ In the second person, they are a mark or sign of an address, made to a person or thing, as:  O thou persecutor!  Oh, ye hypocrites!  O virtue, how amiable thou art!”—­Page 157.  The inaccuracy of all this can scarcely be exceeded.